----••■ -»• :     -_ ,  „,„„„ 


& 


LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

OIF^T  OP" 

Accession           ft fii  30        C^5S 

i. 


The  Signs  of  the  Times 


BY 

M.    J.    SAVAGE 


He  answered  and  said  unto  them,  When  it  is  evening,  ye  say,  It 
will  be  fair  weather :  for  the  sky  is  red. 

And  in  the  morning,  It  will  be  foul  weather  to  day :  for  the  sky  is  red 
and  lowring.  O  ye  hypocrites,  ye  can  discern  the  face  of  the  sky ;  but 
can  ye  not  discern  the  signs  of  the  times  ?  —  Matt.  xvi.  2,  3. 


BOSTON 

Geo.  H.  Ellis,  141  P'ranklin  Street 

1892 


S  B3, 


V> 


ty*' 


Copyright 

By  George  H.  Ellis 

1889 


TO 

THE     INCREASING     NUMBERS,    IN     ALL     SECTS,    WHO     ARE     COMING    TO 

DISCERN   THE   SIGNS   OF   THE  TIMES   MORE  AND    MORE 

CLEARLY,   THIS   BOOK   IS   DEDICATED. 


86130 


CONTENTS 

I.  Break-up  of  the  Old  Orthodoxy 9 

II.  The  Roman  Church 24 

III.  Liberal  Orthodoxy 41 

IV.  Unitarianism       56 

V.  Free  Religion  and  Ethical  Culture       ...  71 

VI.  Scientific  Materialism 87 

VII.  Ingersollism 99 

VIII.  Religious  Reaction 115 

IX.  Mind  Cure 128 

X.  Spiritualism 142 

XI.  Break-ups  that  mean  Advance 158 

XII.  The  New  City  of  God  .    .    . 173 


BREAK-UP  OF  THE  OLD  ORTHODOXY: 

WHY   MEN   DO   NOT  BELIEVE   IT. 


In  taking  up  a  series  of  subjects  like  this  which  I  propose 
under  the  general  title  "  Signs  of  the  Times,"  I  have  some- 
thing far  more  important  in  mind  than  merely  to  amuse  you 
by  the  treatment  of  topics  that  may  be  uppermost  in  the 
popular  mind ;  something  more  important  than  merely  criti- 
cising my  neighbors,  finding  fault  with  or  commending  them; 
something  more  important  than  the  giving  of  lectures.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  one  great  thing  which  thoughtful,  ear- 
nest men  to-day  need  is  to  understand  the  age  in  which  they 
live  and  of  which  they  are  a  part.  The  influence  we  can 
exert  may  be  comparatively  little,  and  to  us,  in  the  modest 
estimate  which  we  set  upon  ourselves,  may  seem  so  insignifi- 
cant as  to  make  us  feel  that  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to 
trouble  ourselves  as  to  the  direction  in  which  this  influence 
is  cast ;  yet,  if  you  think  a  moment,  you  will  see  that  the  ten- 
dency of  the  age,  the  great  trend  of  influence  that  means 
either  decay  or  progress,  is  simply  the  resultant  of  these 
individual  influences  of  ours.  And  which  way  the  age  shall 
move  is  a  mere  question,  so  far  as  we  are  concerned,  of  the 
majority  influence, —  as  to  whether  more  people  shall  be  intel- 
ligently interested  in  having  the  world  go  in  the  right  direction 
than  in  the  wrong.  It  is,  then,  of  vast  importance  that  we 
comprehend,  so  far  as  may  be,  the  age  in  which  we  live,  and 
understand  the  forces  and  the  movements  around  us.     It 


10  Signs  of  the  Times 

is  not  strange  that  we  get  confused,  that  we  find  ourselves 
drawn  this  way  and  that,  that  men  mistake,  the  eddy  for  the 
main  current ;  for  we  are  ourselves  in  the  midst  of  this  cur- 
rent. It  sometimes  seems  to  us  that  we  are  hardly  more 
than  a  chip  or  a  fragment  of  bark  floating  on  the  current, 
swirled  about  by  it,  turned  this  way  and  that  whithersoever 
it  will.  It  needs,  then,  that  every  man  for  himself,  or  else 
some  one  that  he  can  trust  for  him,  should  gain  some  higher 
point  of  outlook  if  possible,  should  be  able  to  look  before 
and  after,  should  know  which  way  the  world  has  been  moving 
for  certain  centuries,  so  getting  in  mind  the  sweep  of  things, 
being  able  thus  to  separate  between  the  main  current  and 
the  eddies,  and  so  discover  which  way  lies  the  hope  of  man- 
kind. It  is  some  general  work  like  this  —  an  attempt,  as  far 
as  may  be,  to  help  you  comprehend  what  is  going  on,  the 
meaning  of  the  great  forces  and  movements  of  which  we  are 
a  part — that  I  have  in  mind.  It  is  not  for  speculative  ends 
or  to  satisfy  your  curiosity,  but  to  help  you  know  which  way 
you  ought  to  think,  which  way  you  ought  to  move,  which  way 
you  ought  to  try  to  turn  the  thought  and  effort  of  others.  It 
is  for  some  such  end  as  this  that  I  have  undertaken  the  work 
which  now  lies  open  before  me. 

We  have  not  to  go  back  very  far  in  the  history  of  the 
world  to  find  a  time  when  substantially  all  the  people  in 
Christendom  believed  about  the  same  thing.  They  looked 
out  with  substantially  the  same  eyes.  They  had  substantially 
the  same  conceptions  of  God  in  their  minds.  They  believed 
substantially  the  same  things  about  the  origin,  the  nature, 
and  the  destiny  of  mankind.  They  were  at  one  on  all  main 
points.  They  answered,  in  some  rough  way  at  least,  to  the 
definition  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  which  has  been  held  for 
many  years.  There  was  this  homogeneity  of  belief  at  least 
throughout  Christendom.     But  now  what  do  we  see  ?    The 


Break-tip  of  the  Old  Orthodoxy  1 1 

Chureh,  whether  people  were  loyal  to  it  or  not,  whether  peo- 
ple attended  the  services  or  not, —  the  Church  then  stood  for 
and  represented  what  were  practically  the  common  ideas  of 
all  Christendom.  But  to-day  what  ?  We  have  only  to  open 
our  eyes  and  look  about  us,  we  have  only  to  listen  to  the 
complaints  that  come  to  us  from  the  pulpits,  from  the  reviews, 
from  the  religious  and  secular  newspapers,  to  see  that  the 
Church  no  longer  holds  the  position  which  it  once  did  in 
either  the  faith  or  the  reverence  of  mankind.  Men  used  to 
believe  that  the  Church  held  the  gift  of  salvation.  The  ma- 
jority of  people  to-day  perhaps  believe  nothing  of  the  sort. 
They  believe  that  the  Church  is  a  good  thing,  that  it  stands 
for  certain  high  ideas,  that  it  exerts  a  certain  fine,  elevating 
influence  in  society.  Many  people  believe  that  the  doctrines 
of  the  Church  do  really  embody  the  one  God-given  plan  for 
human  salvation.  But  there  are  very  few  people  who  think 
that  it  is  absolutely  necessary  to  be  a  member  of  the  Church 
or  even  to  attend  church,  in  order  to  please  God  or  to  serve 
their  fellow-men.  The  Church,  in  other  words,  has  no  longer 
any  such  hold  as  it  used  to  have  on  the  belief,  the  reverence, 
or  the  practical  obedience  of  men.  There  is  a  great  break- 
up. The  fragments  are  moving,  and  taking  shape  in  this 
direction  and  that.  The  Roman  Church  itself  feels  the 
change.  There  is  a  process  of  disintegration  going  on  within 
it.  I  shall  have  occasion  to  treat  of  this  by  and  by.  I  only 
call  your  attention  to  it  this  morning. 

The  old  Protestant  Orthodoxy  is  being  divided  into  in- 
numerable sects.  That  was  true  a  hundred  years  ago;  but 
there  is  a  change  going  on  now  by  which  one  form  has  come 
to  be  representative  of  Liberal  Orthodoxy, —  a  new  kind  of 
Orthodoxy,  which  the  old  does  not  recognize.  The  thoughts 
that  it  stands  for  are  creeping  into  the  work  of  foreign  mis- 
sions.    They  are  disturbing  the  foundations  of  theological 


12  Signs  of  tJie  Times 

institutions.  They  are  at  work  in  the  minds  of  ministers, 
leading  them  to  practically  neglect  or  overlook  the  doctrines 
no  longer  acceptable  to  their  congregations.  The  human 
element  is  coming  forward.  This  great  change  of  thought 
has  also  touched  Unitarianism,  which  we  in  a  way  repre- 
sent. There  are  Free  Religion,  Ethical  Culture,  Scientific 
Materialism,  Ingersollism,  Agnosticism  in  all  its  depart- 
ments. Then,  the  head  of  man  having  become  puzzled  in 
its  attempts  to  solve  this  great  universe,  the  heart,  too,  finds 
itself  hungering  for  spiritual  food.  There  are  signs  on  all 
hands  of  reaction  from  the  extreme  materialistic  or  purely 
agnostic  tendencies ;  and  so  people,  having  lost  their  faith, 
are  borrowing  the  old-time  faiths  of  the  East,  and  we  find 
people  rushing  back  not  only  into  old  organizations,  but  im- 
porting Theosophy,  Metaphysics,  Christian  Science.  Then 
that  heart-hungering  of  the  world  for  some  whisper  from 
beyond  has  given  us  Spiritualism.  I  simply  refer  to  these 
things  this  morning  as  indications  of  this  great  break-up  of 
the  old  beliefs.  We  are  in  the  midst  of  the  confusion  and 
the  conflicting  demands  of  a  thousand  people,  who  are  tell- 
ing us  that  this  way  or  that  or  the  other  lies  the  hope  of 
mankind. 

My  purpose  this  morning  is  to  help  to  answer  the  question 
as  to  why  this  condition  of  things  is  upon  us.  What  has 
happened?  Are  the  movements  of  which  we  are  a  part 
to-day  indications  that  there  is  nothing  true,  nothing  certain  ? 
Do  they  mean  the  decay  of  religion  ?  Do  they  mean  the  loss 
of  faith  ?  Do  they  mean  the  dying  out  of  reverence  ?  or  do 
they  mean  that  mankind  is  ceasing  to  aspire,  to  care  for  spir- 
itual satisfaction,  that  it  is  going  to  be  content  hereafter  with 
this  little  world,  and  the  common  business  and  social  engage- 
ments of  life  ?  Does  it  mean  a  revolution  against  recogniz- 
ing and  acknowledging  truth?     Is  it  impiety,  this  lack  of 


Break-up  of  the  Old  Orthodoxy  13 

reverence  for,  or  faith  in  the  old  churches  ?  Is  it  because 
the  world  is  more  ignorant  than  it  used  to  be  ?  Or,  if  there 
has  been  an  increase  in  knowledge,  as  we  love  to  boast,  has 
there  gone  along  with  it  a  spiritual  pride,  which  refuses  to 
bow  the  neck  to  God's  truth  merely  because  it  does  not  like 
it  ?  Is  the  world,  along  with  its  wisdom,  growing  morally 
worse?  What  is  the  matter?  What  has  happened  that  these 
old  faiths  should  be  no  longer  believed  ? 

In  answering  these  questions,  I  shall  be  obliged  to  re- 
handle,  in  another  way  and  for  another  purpose,  some  points 
with  which  my  preaching  in  the  past  years  has  already  made 
you  more  or  less  familiar.  Yet  there  are  some  truths  so  fun- 
damental, so  important,  and  that  it  seems  to  me  are  so  little 
felt  and  appreciated  by  the  majority  of  even  liberal  men, 
that  perhaps  I  should  not  go  astray  if  I  repeated  them  over 
and  over  again  until  they  had  become  familiarized,  every-day, 
matter-of-fact  truths  to  the  common  consciousness  of  the 
world. 

We  need  to  start  with  the  thought  that  this  race  of  ours 
began  in  childhood,  weak,  helpless,  ignorant,  in  the  midst 
of  a  universe  that  we  have  found  to  be  practically  infinite. 
That  is,  the  race  began  knowing  nothing  practically, —  a  little 
weak,  infantile  race,  looking  this  way  and  that,  imagining 
something  here,  building  up  its  little  theories,  getting  its 
ideas  as  best  it  could  from  its  limited  experience,  finding 
out  that  it  was  wrong,  trying  to  correct  its  errors,  to  get  new 
and  better  thoughts.  And  so  tentatively,  through  its  strug- 
gles age  after  age,  this  race  of  ours  has  been  growing  slowly 
from  the  beginning.  That  is  the  point  that  you  need  to 
keep  in  mind  as  the  key  of  this  whole  great  problem.  You 
need  to  remember  that  at  first  it  was  inevitable  that  the 
child-world  should  have  childish  thoughts  about  the  world, 
about  God,  about  itself,  about  man,  about  the  future.     So 


14  Signs  of  the   Times 

that  instead  of  doing  as  men  have  been  taught  to  do,  accus- 
tomed to  do  for  ages,  look  backward  for  wisdom,  we  ought 
to  look  backward  for  childishness.  The  common  idea,  that 
has  been  almost  universal  for  hundreds  of  years,  that  the 
faiths  and  the  beliefs  of  the  old-time  people,  of  the  former 
times,  of  the  patriarchs,  of  the  prophets,  were  somehow 
nearer  to  God  and  nearer  true  than  the  beliefs  of  to-day, 
has  sprung  out  of  the  theory  of  things  which  taught  us  that 
the  world  began  in  perfection  and  fell  away  from  it.  But, 
since  we  have  found  out  that  it  is  not  true,  we  must  simply 
reverse  that  old  conception  of  things.  We  must  remember 
that  the  old  age  of  the  world  or  the  mature  thoughts  of  the 
world,  those  thoughts  that  ought  to  be  treated  reverently 
because  of  their  presumed  merit,  those  that  are  more  likely 
to  be  nearer  the  truth,  are  the  thoughts  of  the  grown-up 
world  of  to-day  and  not  the  thoughts  of  the  childhood  world 
of  the  olden  time.  Paul  says,  "When  I  was  a  child,  I  spake 
as  a  child,  I  understood  as  a  child,  I  thought  as  a  child ;  but 
when  I  became  a  man  I  put  away  childish  things."  So  the 
world,  when  it  was  a  child,  spake  as  a  child,  understood  as 
a  child,  thought  as  a  child ;  and  in  the  child-understanding, 
the  child-speaking,  the  child-thinking  of  the  antique  world, 
is  the  birth  of  all  old  religions.  From  that  day  until  this, 
however,  the  world  has  been  growing, — growing  through 
youth,  through  early  manhood,  towards  mature  age.  For 
I  wish  you  to  understand  that  it  is  my  serious  conviction 
that  it  is  only  here  and  there  that  some  little  fragment  of 
the  world  deserves  even  yet  to  be  called  civilized.  The 
people  who  shall  be  alive  a  thousand  years  from  to-day  will 
look  back  upon  and  talk  of  the  crudeness  of  this  nineteenth 
century,  with  as  much  grown-up  compassion  as  we  regard 
to-day  the  crudeness  of  the  Middle  Ages,  and  with  equal 
reason.     I  speak  of  this  simply  to  emphasize  and  enforce 


Break-up  of  the  Old  Orthodoxy  15. 

this  thought :  that  this  humanity  of  ours  is  God's  child,  born 
in  weakness  and  in  ignorance,  but  that  it  has  been  growing 
all  these  ages,  these  thousands  of  years,  and  is  yet  far  from 
having  got  its  growth.  This,  then,  is  the  key  that  we  need 
to  keep  in  mind.  We  need  to  remember  that  every  religion 
has  simply  been  the  attempt  of  this  child-world  to  think  the 
truth  about  its  world,  about  its  God,  about  itself,  about 
the  relation  in  which  it  stands  to  God.  For  every  religion 
the  wide  world  over  from  the  beginning  till  to-day  has  been 
nothing  more  nor  less  than  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  man 
to  get  into  right  relations  to  the  Unseen,  the  Infinite  Father. 
Every  religion  has  made  that  attempt.  And,  if  Christianity 
be  a  grander  religion  than  any  that  the  world  has  ever  seen, 
it  is  simply  because  it  is  the  religion  of  the  most  civilized 
races,  the  ones  that  have  come  nearer  to  having  true 
thoughts  about  the  universe  and  God,  because  it  is  the 
religion  of  those  races  that  have  been  the  most  highly  de- 
veloped as  to  morals,  because  they  have  come  a  little  nearer 
to  the  truth,  not  because  there  is  anything  exceptional  or 
miraculous  about  them,  not  because  they  stand  apart  in  a 
class  by  themselves  as  having  the  one  true  religion,  looking 
down  upon  all  the  others  as  false. 

I  wish  now  to  have  you  keep  this  one  thought  in  mind :  that, 
the  farther  back  you  go,  the  cruder,  the  more  barbaric,  the 
poorer  the  religion  you  find ;  and  this  is  just  what  you  ought 
to  expect.  As  a  race  develops,  as  it  becomes  wiser,  as  its 
social  experience  gives  it  higher  and  better  moral  ideas,  you 
find  religion  improving.  There  is  a  nobler  thought  of  God ; 
he  is  looked  upon  as  a  better  and  wiser  being.  There  is  a 
nobler  conception  of  man ;  and  the  attempts  on  the  part  of 
man  to  come  into  right  relation  with  God  are  wiser  and  bet- 
ter and  more  humane.  People  no  longer  think  that  they  can 
please  God  by  butchering  an  animal,  or  by  butchering  one  of 


1 6  Signs  of  the  Times 

their  fellow-men,  or  by  burning  one  of  their  children  in  a  fur- 
nace, or  by  casting  a  baby  into  a  sacred  river.  These  bar- 
baric and  cruel  ideas  belong  to  barbaric  and  cruel  times;  and 
they  are  left  behind  as  the  world  grows  wiser. 

Now  I  wish  to  outline  for  you,  for  the  sake  of  clearness 
and  consistency  in  the  treatment  of  my  theme,  the  scheme  of 
thought  that  the  Christian  world  has  substantially  held  for 
centuries.  Then  I  want  to  explain  to  you  how  inevitable  it 
has  been  that  that  scheme  should  be  outgrown  and  left  be- 
hind. It  is  only  a  few  hundred  years,  two  or  three  hundred, 
—  we  need  not  go  back  of  the  time  when  the  city  of  Boston 
was  founded  to  come  to  a  period  when  the  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse generally  held  throughout  Christendom  was  substan- 
tially that  theory  which  is  figuratively  and  poetically  set  forth 
in  Milton's  "Paradise  Lost." 

Suppose  I  draw  here,  in  the  air,  a  circle.  Let  that  repre- 
sent the  boundary  of  everything.  Let  me  cut  that  across  the 
centre  by  a  line  that  may  look  like  an  equator.  In  the  upper 
half  of  the  circle  is  heaven,  the  home  of  God  and  the  angels 
and  all  the  celestial  hosts.  Below,  in  the  lower  half,  before 
the  world  was  created,  was  chaos.  But  something  happened 
in  this  heaven.  There  was  rebellion  there.  We  do  not  know 
why,  except  that  Milton  guesses  that,  on  the  day  when  the 
Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  was  selected  to  be  placed  as  ruler 
under  God,  a  sort  of  vicegerent  over  all  his  creation,  Satan 
rebelled  because  of  pride  against  that,  and  led  one-third  part 
of  the  angels  into  this  revolt.  He  was  cast  out,  and  so  hell 
came  into  being.  It  was  in  the  lower  part  of  this  great  circle. 
If  you  should  draw  a  line  like  an  antarctic  circle  near  the 
bottom  of  this  hemisphere,  hell  would  be  below  that.  This 
was  made  the  home  of  these  rebel  angels.  Then  God  deter- 
mined to  create  man  to  repair  the  loss  in  heaven ;  and  Jesus 
was  made  the  minister  of  God  in  this  work  of  creation.     If 


Break-up  of  the  Old  Orthodoxy  iy 

now  you  draw  a  small  circle,  the  upper  edge  of  which  shall 
almost  touch  the  equator,  and  the  lower  edge  of  which  shall 
extend  half  way  down  to  the  dome  of  hell,  you  will  have 
what  we  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  as  this  solar  system, 
the  universe.  At  the  centre  of  this  is  the  earth,  a  little 
fixed  spot,  though  the  largest  body  of  the  whole,  and  round 
it  nine  concentric,  transparent,  crystal  spheres.  To  these 
spheres  were  attached  the  moon,  the  sun,  the  planets,  and  to 
the  outer  one  the  fixed  stars.  These  revolved,  carrying 
round  the  sun,  moon,  and  planets  as  they  moved.  The  one 
object  of  creating  this  world  was  to  make  it  the  scene  of  the 
probation  of  man  who  should  be  placed  on  it.  But  he  had 
not  been  here  long  before  he  also  was  seduced  into  revolt ; 
and  he  became  the  object  of  the  curse  and  wrath  of  God 
instead  of  his  love.  Then  God  determined  to  redeem  this 
lost  race ;  and  he  sent  his  son  in  the  likeness  of  a  man  to 
live  and  teach  and  suffer  and  die  here  on  this  little  earth. 
Then  we  have  the  miraculous  Bible,  a  revelation,  teaching 
man  this  love  of  God,  the  history  of  his  fall,  and  giving 
an  account  of  the  work  and  sufferings  of  his  son,  authenti- 
cated by  miracle.  So  you  will  see  that  the  whole  plan,  the 
whole  scheme  of  doctrine,  fitted  this  little  world,  this  con- 
ception of  the  universe  which  was  called  into  being  for  it ; 
and  there  is  not  one  single  doctrine  of  all  the  old  Ortho- 
doxy that  has  not  come  into  being  merely  for  the  sake  of 
helping  to  deliver  man  from  the  results  of  this  supposed 
catastrophe  brought  about  by  his  fall.  This  is  the  kind  of 
world  that  was  believed  in  for  hundreds  of  years.  You  will 
notice  that  every  religion  that  has  ever  existed  from  the  be- 
ginning has  been  fitted  in  this  way  into  the  kind  of  world  in 
which  men  believed. 

Now,  the  whole  orthodox  scheme  of  salvation,  with  its  out- 
come of  heaven  for  those  who  accept  the  redemption  offered 


1 8  Signs  of  the  Times 

and  of  hell  for  those  who  reject  it,  and  its  eternal  dura- 
tion,—  all  these  belong  to  this  theory  of  things.  They  are 
all  part  of  it.  They  have  all  come  into  existence  because 
men  believed  in  a  great  catastrophe  called  the  "  Fall  "  ;  and 
this  theory  of  things  grew  up  as  the  method  by  which  men 
were  to  be  delivered  from  its  effects.  Why  cannot  we  be- 
lieve it  ?  I  wish  to  tell  you  of  three  things  that  have  hap- 
pened as  a  reason  why  we  cannot. 

I.  Remembering  that  this  was  a  childhood  world,  in  which 
childhood  ideas  were  accepted,  the  first  thing  that  we  need 
to  note  is  that  there  has  sprung  up  in  the  modern  world  a 
science  of  criticism,  which  makes  it  impossible  any  longer 
for  men  to  believe  that  which  they  used  to  accept  as  per- 
fectly credible.  The  story  of  "  Robert  Elsmere  "  is  instruc- 
tive in  this  direction.  The  book  turns  on  this  question  of 
historic  criticism.  The  author  makes  Robert  undertake  the 
work  of  writing  a  history  of  France ;  and,  as  he  studies  the 
authorities  to  see  why  men  believed  thus  and  thus  in  the 
Middle  Ages,  he  is  forced  to  apply  the  same  kind  of  princi- 
ples that  he  applied  to  the  history  of  France  to  the  history 
of  early  Christianity.  He  found  that  there  was  no  reason 
for  believing  in  the  miracles  of  eighteen  hundred  years  ago 
that  was  not  equally  cogent  in  favor  of  the  miracles  reported 
during  the  Middle  Ages,  that  the  whole  thing  turned  on  the 
same  kind  of  human  testimony.  He  found  himself  in  a 
world  in  which  it  was  perfectly  natural  and  easy  for  people 
to  believe  things  which  in  a  grown-up  world  were  no  longer 
credible.  If  you  go  down  the  centuries, —  for  it  is  down  as 
we  go  towards  the  beginning, —  if  you  go  back  down  the 
centuries,  you  will  find  that  people  were  ignorant  of  the  laws 
governing  this  universe,  that  they  lived  in  an  imaginary, 
magical  world.  They  had  no  intellectual  difficulties  con- 
cerning the  possibility  of  this  or  that  happening,  any  more 


" 


Break-up  of  the  Old  Orthoc 

than  a  child  has  when  it  sits  delightedly  listening  to  a  fairy 
tale.  The  child  has  developed  no  philosophical,  critical, 
logical  difficulties  with  which  its  imagination  is  disturbed; 
but  the  moment  that  man  learns  what  is  the  kind  of  universe 
in  which  he  is  living,  what  are  the  forces  and  laws  in  accord- 
ance with  which  the  world  is  governed,  then  he  suddenly 
discovers  that  he  can  no  longer  believe  those  things  which 
he  once  easily  believed.  These  principles  have  been  applied 
to  the  Bible;  and  we  have  found  out  that  bibles  grow  as 
naturally  as  grass  and  flowers,  that  all  the  religions  of  the 
world  have  had  their  bibles  that  they  look  upon  as  miracu- 
lous. We  have  found  out  that  they  have  been  authenticated 
by  miracles,  that  each  has  its  own  cycle  of  myth  and  miracle, 
and  that  there  is  no  adequate  reason  why  we  should  set  our 
Christian  history  and  Christian  miracles  up  by  themselves, 
and  say  that  we  have  reason  for  faith  that  the  others  have 
not;  but,  in  the  early  childhood  of  the  world,  it  was  per- 
fectly natural  that  people  should  believe  certain  things  that 
a  grown-up  world  cannot  accept.  So  we  found  that  the 
creeds  of  the  Church,  instead  of  having  a  miraculous  and  in- 
fallible origin,  have  sprung  up,  just  as  the  Westminster  Cate- 
chism, the  Presbyterian  Confession  of  Faith,  the  Andover 
Creed,  and  all  the  creeds  of  the  world  have  sprung  up. 
Men  have  simply  been  feeling  after  the  truth,  as  best  they 
could,  in  the  midst  of  controversies  and  struggles ;  and  their 
belief  became  the  orthodoxy  of  the  time.  That  is  the  way 
every  creed  has  grown.  The  application  of  the  critical  prin- 
ciples to  the  ease  with  which  they  accepted  these  things,  to 
the  growth  of  the  Bible,  to  the  miracle,  to  the  creed, —  these 
things  have  made  it  impossible  for  us  any  longer  to  accept 
the  old  theory  of  the  universe,  the  old  scheme  of  super- 
natural salvation. 

II.  Then  something  has  happened  in  the  scientific  world. 


20  Signs  of  the  Times 

I  wish  I  had  time  to  outline  it  adequately.  I  must  only 
point  out  a  few  things  here  and  there.  I  should  class  it 
under  three  different  heads  :  — 

i.  This  old  theory  of  things  told  us  that  the  world  was 
created  only  a  little  while  ago ;  but  geology,  within  the  mem- 
ory of  living  men, —  think  how  modern  that  is!  —  has  dis- 
covered that  this  world  is  millions  and  millions  of  years  old, 
proved  it  beyond  a  question.  For  example,  we  know  that 
chalk  is  made  up  of  the  remains  of  little  creatures  that  were 
once  alive.  We  know  that  it  is  being  deposited  to-day,  as  it 
was  a  million  years  ago,  on  the  sea  bottom.  We  know  that  it 
must  have  taken  at  least  a  hundred  thousand  years  to  de- 
posit the  chalk  cliffs  of  Dover,  England.  This  only  as  a  hint 
in  one  department  as  to  the  results  of  geological  demonstra- 
tion. The  world,  then,  instead  of  being  a  few  thousand 
years  old  is  millions  of  years  old. 

2.  Then  there  has  sprung  up  the  science  of  archaeology,  of 
antiquities.  We  have  been  studying  the  remains  of  human 
life  on  this  planet ;  and  what  do  we  find  ?  That  man,  instead 
of  having  been  created  perfect  six  thousand  years  ago,  has 
inhabited  this  planet  two  hundred,  perhaps  three  hundred, 
thousand  years.  Two  hundred  thousand  is  probably  the 
lowest  limit  that  competent  men  would  assign  to  the  life 
of  man  on  this  planet;  and  some  have  adduced  very  good 
reasons  for  thinking  that  he  must  have  been  here  at  least 
three  hundred  thousand. 

3.  Then  comes  another  department,  called  "  Biology,"  the 
science  of  life,  that  which  deals  with  the  origin  and  nature 
of  man.  It  has  been  demonstrated  beyond  question  that, 
instead  of  man's  having  been  created  perfect,  he  has  been 
developed  from  the  lower  forms  of  life  through  the  lapse  of 
thousands  and  thousands  of  years ;  that  there  has  never 
been   any  perfect   Adam ;   that   there  has   never  been   any 


Break-up  of  the  Old  Orthodoxy  21 

Garden  of  Eden ;  that  there  has  never  been  any  serpent,  any 
temptation  of  the  race  as  such ;  that  there  has  never  been 
any  fall.  The  very  basis  of  the  beliefs  of  Christendom  has 
been  shattered  by  this  science;  and,  instead  of  this  little, 
tiny  universe,  in  which  this  mysterious  and  wonderful  drama 
of  creation  and  probation  has  been  going  on,  this  heaven 
and  hell  in  which  it  has  been  played,  we  find  ourselves  lost 
in  an  infinite  universe,  of  which  we  can  imagine  no  begin- 
ning, boundary,  or  end. 

III.  There  has  been  a  development  of  the  humane  quality 
in  man, —  that  which  we  call  humanitarianism.  Man  has 
grown  as  a  moral  being,  so  that  it  is  morally  impossible  for 
the  human  race,  the  highest  and  most  highly  developed 
parts  of  it,  any  longer  to  accept  as  true  that  which  it  once 
used  to  accept  without  a  question.  Dr.  Channing  used  to 
argue  out  the  essential  goodness  of  human  nature,  and  say 
that  it  was  incredible  that  man  should  be  totally  depraved. 
But  it  is  not  so  much  on  that  point  that  I  should  lay  the 
stress  of  moral  argument.  It  is  that,  in  the  process  of  civil- 
ization, man  has  grown  so  tender-hearted,  so  loving,  so  sym- 
pathetic, has  developed  such  a  keen  sense  of  that  which  is 
just  and  fair,  that  it  is  impossible  for  him  any  longer  to 
believe  in  the  kind  of  God  that  men  used  to  worship  without 
a  question.  You  will  not  be  surprised  at  this,  if  you  are 
familiar  with  human  history.  Just  think  of  it !  Go  back  to 
only  a  few  years  before  the  Revolution  in  France,  and  what 
do  you  find  ?  You  find  a  king  on  the  throne,  jolly,  good- 
natured,  selfish,  thinking  that  the  whole  kingdom  was  made 
for  himself,  so  that,  when  they  spoke  of  the  State,  he  says, 
"/  am  the  State";  who  gives  to  one  of  his  followers  —  a 
favorite,  perhaps  —  carte  blanche  authority  to  arrest  anybody 
that  he  does  not  like,  and  cast  him  into  the  Bastile,  and  he 
lies  there,  going  in  a  young  man  perhaps,  and  starves  and 


22  Signs  of  the   Times 

rots  year  after  year  until  he  is  gray  and  haggard  and  per- 
haps insane.  This  does  not  trouble  the  king  in  his  pleas- 
ures. He  does  not  lie  awake  nights  thinking  of  the  suffering 
he  has  caused.  This  kind  of  cruelty,  this  kind  of  barbarism, 
this  lack  of  sensitive  sympathy  concerning  the  suffering  of 
others,  used  to  be  practically  universal ;  and  the  king  was 
looked  upon  as  having  a  perfect  right  to  do  with  his  subjects 
anything  that  he  pleased.  It  was  out  of  such  a  condition 
of  things,  out  of  such  social  barbarism,  that  sprang  up  the 
popular  conception  of  God  as  a  supreme,  selfish  egotist  and 
despot  of  the  universe,  who  could  sit  on  his  throne  and 
arrange  everything  for  his  own  glory,  appointing  this  one 
to  heaven  simply  to  illustrate  the  beauty  of  his  grace  and 
to  sing  his  praise  forever,  and  that  one  to  hell  simply  to 
illustrate  the  severity  of  his  own  justice  and  his  power  to 
punish  with  infinite  cruelty.  It  was  natural  that  out  of  that 
social,  barbaric,  cruel  condition  should  spring  such  a  con- 
ception of  God  as  that.  It  was  natural  enough  then  that 
men  should  believe  it;  but  to-day  men  cannot  believe  it. 
Were  there  no  criticism  to  tell  us  that  the  Bible  is  not  in- 
fallible, to  tell  us  of  the  natural  origin  of  all  religions ;  were 
there  no  criticism  to  tell  us  of  the  natural  origin  of  creeds ; 
were  there  no  science  to  tell  us  that  the  old  conception  of 
the  universe  was  as  a  baby's  playhouse  compared  to  the 
infinite  majesty  of  what  we  now  know  to  be  true,  to  tell  us 
that  man  has  been  on  this  planet  hundreds  of  thousands 
of  years;  had  it  not  been  demonstrated  that  man  has  been 
developed  from  lower  forms  of  life, —  were  these  things  all 
unknown,  the  growing  civilization  of  the  world,  the  goodness 
of  the  human  heart,  would  have  made  it  impossible  for  the 
world  any  longer  to  believe  in  the  cruel  egotist  sitting  on 
the  throne  of  the  universe,  and  governing  all  merely  for  his 
own  glory.  The  world  is  too  good  for  that  kind  of  a  God 
any  longer. 


Break-up  of  the  Old  Orthodoxy  23 

So  you  find  that  the  churches  of  every  name,  though  they 
claim  to  hold  the  creeds,  do  put  on  one  side  more  and 
tnore  those  things  that  the  reverence  and  tenderness  and 
sympathy  and  love  and  goodness  of  the  human  heart  will 
no  longer  bear.     And  so  we  hear  men  like  Whittier  saying, 

"  But  still,  my  human  hands  are  weak 
To  hold  your  iron  creeds." 

The  revolt  of  the  heart  demands  at  last  that  the  infinite  God 
of  the  universe  should  be  as  good  as  a  good  man.  These  are 
the  reasons  why  there  is  a  break-up  of  the  old  Orthodoxy, 
why  men  do  not  any  longer  believe  in  and  accept  it. 

And  what  is  the  significance  of  these  reasons  ?  Does  it 
mean  that  the  world  is  less  religious,  less  moral,  less 
reverent?  Does  it  mean  degeneracy,  decay?  It  means 
that  this  human  race  of  ours,  starting  as  a  child,  is  on  the 
road  towards  manhood ;  that  it  is  growing,  that  it  has  grown, 
too  intelligent,  too  tender-hearted,  too  good,  any  longer  to 
bear  the  intellectual  contradictions  and  puerilities  and  crude- 
nesses  and  cruelties  of  the  old  theories  of  religion.  We  shall 
find,  I  believe,  that  the  world  has  not  outgrown  religion,  not 
even  outgrown  the  Church  or  the  church  idea,  but  that  all 
we  love,  all  we  care  for,  not  only  remains,  but  is  to  go  on, 
becoming  ever  more  and  more. 


THE  ROMAN  CHURCH. 


In  the  summer  of  1883,  I  stood  in  the  well-known  church 
of  St.  Paul's  without,  at  Rome, —  so  called  because  it  stands 
outside  of  what  used  to  be  the  walls  of  the  Eternal  City. 
This  church  is  one  of  magnificent  wealth  and  beauty.  It  has 
many  pillars  made  of  very  rare  and  valuable  stones,  the  gifts 
of  cities,  states,  nations,  and  kings.  But  the  one  thing  that 
attracted  my  attention  more  than  all  the  rest  was  a  long  row 
of  portraits  above  the  painted  glory  of  the  windows,  portraits 
of  the  popes  of  the  Roman  Church.  The  series  began  with 
that  of  Peter ;  and  it  came  down  through  all  the  ages  from 
that  time  until  the  present,  leaving  vacant  circular  spaces 
to  contain  those  who  should  occupy  the  papal  chair  in  the 
coming  centuries. 

This,  you  will  note,  is  typical  of  the  claim  which  the 
Roman  Church  has  always  made.  It  stands  as  representa- 
tive of  the  one  true  Church  of  God  from  the  beginning  until 
now.  Its  claim  is  that  it  has  been  presided  over  by  an  un- 
broken series  of  popes,  reaching  back  to  him  into  whose  liv- 
ing hands  the  Son  of  God  himself  gave  the  keys  of  universal 
dominion  both  on  earth  and  in  heaven.  A  magnificent 
claim ;  and  magnificently,  we  must  confess,  has  the  Church 
endeavored  to  substantiate  and  carry  out  that  claim. 

But  is  the  claim  true  ?  It  is  a  serious  question  on  the  part 
of  scholars  whether  Peter  ever  saw  the  city  of  Rome.  We 
know,  beyond   any  question,  that  the   old  first  church  of 


The  Roman  Church  25 

Jerusalem  was  a  Unitarian  church ;  for  any  thought  of  a 
trinity  had  not  yet  dawned  upon  the  Church's  horizon.  We 
know  that  there  was  no  organization  then  in  existence  like 
the  Church  at  Rome.  We  know  that  its  doctrines,  most  of 
them,  were  not  in  existence.  We  know  that  there  was  no 
bishop  of  that  first  church.  We  know  that  Peter,  during  his 
lifetime,  was  never  recognized  as  having  any  sort  of  primacy 
among  the  apostles.  If  he  was  ever  in  Rome  at  all, —  and 
this  is  a  point  worthy  of  your  serious  attention, —  he  was 
there  as  the  organizer  of  a  faction  in  opposition  to  Paul,  who 
occupied  the  field  before  him.  We  know  that  Paul  was 
there  ;  that  he  organized  in  Rome  one  of  the  most  important 
of  all  the  ancient  churches, —  that  church  to  which  he  ad- 
dressed the  most  important  of  all  his  epistles.  We  know 
that  Paul  represented  a  new  departure  in  the  church ;  that 
he  was  opposed  by  the  older  apostles,  by  all  those  who  be- 
lieved that  they  had  received  the  final  word  from  the  Master. 
Paul  claimed  to  have  received  a  later  revelation.  At  any 
rate,  he  preached  a  broader,  more  humanitarian  gospel ;  and 
if,  as  I  said,  Peter  was  ever  in  Rome,  he  was  there  at  the 
head  of  a  faction  which  opposed  and  attempted  to  discredit 
the  work  of  that  apostle  who  had  preceded  him,  and  not  as 
the  first  organizer  of  Christianity  in  .the  Eternal  City. 

Perhaps  it  is  worth  my  while  at  this  point  to  raise  a  ques- 
tion concerning  this  passage  of  Scripture  that  the  Roman 
Church  has  always  made  the  basis  of  its  claim  and  as  estab- 
lishing the  primacy  of  Peter. 

It  seems  incredible  that  if,  in  the  presence  of  the  other 
apostles,  Peter  had  had  any  such  power  conferred  upon  him 
by  him  whom  they  all  reverenced  as  Master,  whatever  their 
theory  of  his  nature  and  origin,  under  those  circumstances 
this  primacy  should  not  have  been  acknowledged  at  the  time. 
But  we  know,  as  a  matter  of  historic  truth,  that  it  was   an 


26  Signs  of  the   Times 

afterthought ;  and  I  believe  that  it  can  be  established  as  the 
result  of  sound  criticism  that  these  verses  themselves  were 
an  afterthought, —  not  part  of  the  original  gospel,  but  inter- 
polated, invented,  for  a  special  purpose  in  after  years.  For 
we  have  an  example  of  such  a  thing,  which  shows  clearly 
the  spirit  of  the  age,  and  what  the  men  who  were  reaching 
out  for  power  and  supremacy  in  the  ancient  church  were 
capable  of.  There  was  a  whole  series  of  what  claimed  to  be 
the  decisions  and  decrees  on  the  part  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
settling  controversies  that  had  arisen  in  different  parts  of 
the  empire ;  and  it  is  now  settled  beyond  any  sort  of  ques- 
tion that  almost  every  one  of  these  decretals,  as  they  are 
called,  were  forged, —  forged  for  the  purpose  of  establishing 
the  primacy  of  Rome,  forged  that  they  might  be  appealed  to 
in  testimony  of  the  fact,  which  then  began  to  be  claimed, 
that  Rome  had  always  been  acknowledged  as  the  head  of  the 
Christian  Church. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  then,  we  know  that  during  the  first 
two  or  three  centuries,  before  Christianity  attained  its 
supremacy  in  the  Roman  Empire,  it  was  bitterly  persecuted ; 
and  during  those  ages  of  persecution  the  Church  had  no 
desire,  even  if  it  had  had  the  power,  to  make  itself  a  grand 
organization.  Its  policy  was  rather  to  hide  itself  out  of  sight 
until  the  storm  of  persecution  should  blow  over.  And  it 
was  only  after  the  persecuting  age  had  passed  by,  after  the 
conversion  of  Constantine,  after  the  Church  had  climbed  to 
the  throne,  that  it  approached  anything  like  the  organiza- 
tion which  it  represents  to-day.  There  were  only  scattered 
churches  in  Corinth,  in  Ephesus,  in  Rome,  in  the  different 
great  cities  of  the  empire,  with  here  and  there  handfuls  of 
believers  in  the  smaller  places,  the  belief  growing  gradually, 
but  growing  all  the  time, —  growing  as  the  grasses  and  the 
flowers  grow  in  spring,  out  of  sight,  until  the  sun  of  pros- 


The  Roman  Church  2J 

perity  had  risen  in  the  sky,  and  they  could  show  themselves 
without  danger  of  being  frost-bitten  and  killed. 

Then  the  Church  organized  itself.  Then  there  were  bish- 
ops, claiming  individual  power  to  rule  over  these  separate 
churches.  And  very  naturally  the  bishop  of  Rome  and  the 
church  at  Rome  would  arrogate  to  themselves  the  suprem- 
acy, superiority  over  those  bishops  that  were  at  the  head  of 
smaller  organizations  or  in  less  important  cities.  The  bishop 
and  the  church  which  were  at  the  capital  of  the  empire  would 
naturally  be  looked  up  to  as  occupying  at  least  a  more  signifi- 
cant position  than  the  bishop  of  any  other  Christian  organ- 
ization. 

But  the  time  came  when  the  seat  of  empire  was  changed. 
Constantine  moved  his  capital  to  what  for  the  time  was 
called  New  Rome, —  Constantinople.  Then  the  bishop  of 
Rome,  who  had  already  begun  to  claim  the  supremacy  over 
all  other  churches,  who  had  begun  to  claim  the  power  to 
settle  disputes  both  as  to  doctrine  and  as  to  organization, 
ritual,  practice, —  disputes  that  might  rise  between  churches, 
between  bishops, —  began  to  press  more  strongly  the  primacy 
of  Peter.  Not  that  the  claim  did  not  exist  before ;  but  he 
emphasized  it,  because  there  was  danger  that  the  metropolis, 
the  new  capital  on  the  Bosphorus,  would  supersede  his  power. 
But  the  claim  had  been  allowed  for  so  long  on  the  part  of 
the  neighboring  churches  that  it  was  not  easy  to  dislodge  the 
power  that  had  been  established  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber ; 
and  the  neighboring  bishops  naturally  appealed  in  their  dis- 
putes to  him  who  was  recognized  as  the  most  important  one, 
at  least  in  all  that  region. 

At  last  the  time  came  —  I  pass  over  the  steps  in  detail, 
because  it  is  not  necessary  that  I  should  go  into  particulars 
now,  as  well  as  because  I  have  not  time — when  the  Roman 
emperor  sided  with  the  Roman  bishop,  giving  him  the  advan- 


28  Signs  of  the  Times 

tage  which  was  so  decisive  at  that  time,  of  the  temporal 
power,  the  emperor  back  of  the  bishop.  Of  course,  after 
that  there  was  no  power  that  could  dispute  the  claim  of  the 
papal  see. 

This  power,  then,  grew  as  the  ages  went  by,  until  universal 
Christendom  submitted.  No,  not  quite.  The  pope  of  Rome 
has  always  claimed,  at  least  in  modern  centuries,  to  represent 
alone  the  Church  of  God ;  but  the  whole  Greek  branch  of 
the  Church  split  off  from  the  Roman,  refusing  to  recognize 
its  claim.  It  charged  the  Roman  see  with  heresy,  and  re- 
fused to  recognize  its  power,  so  that  there  has  never  been  a 
day  from  the  first  when  the  claim  of  the  Roman  Church  to 
be  universal,  catholic  in  the  broadest  sense  of  the  word,  has 
.ever  been  true.  But  it  did  assert  its  supremacy  over  nearly 
all  Europe,  over  nearly  all  that  had  constituted  the  great  Ro- 
man Empire. 

Now  I  wish,  not  at  all  in  a  spirit  of  opposition,  but  as 
sympathetically  as  I  can,  to  note  some  features  of  the  Roman 
Church  during  its  grandest  days. 

The  Roman  Church  in  the  main  rightly  ruled  Christendom, 
because  it  summed  up  and  represented  in  itself  at  that  time 
all  the  best  there  was  in  Christendom.  In  those  ages,  the 
Church  perfectly  satisfied  the  intellect  of  man.  There  was 
no  battle  then  between  philosophy  and  the  Church,  or  be- 
tween science  and  the  Church,  between  the  thoughts  of  men 
and  the  claims  of  the  papacy.  Nearly  all  the  intellect  in 
Europe  was  in  the  service  of  the  Church.  Science  wrought 
within  the  limits  of  her  claims.  Philosophy  speculated  only 
within  the  limits  of  her  claims.  Art  lived  apparently  only  to 
serve  the  Church.  Music  only  attempted  to  give  expression 
to  the  aspirations  of  the  Church.  So  that  the  whole  intellect 
of  the  time  was  satisfied  with  the  Church's  theories,  the 
Church's   conception   of   the   world,    the   Church's   thought 


The  Roman  Church  29 

about  God,  the  Church's  thought  about  the  nature  and  origin 
of  man,  the  Church's  thought  about  destiny,  about  all  the 
great  things  that  concern  human  life.  The  Church's  thought 
at  that  time  was  substantially  man's  thought,  so  that  it  existed 
by  virtue  of  the  grandest  of  all  rights,  the  right  of  summing 
up,  expressing,  and  satisfying  the  thought  of  the  world. 

Not  only  did  the  Church  satisfy  the  thought :  it  was  the 
natural,  legitimate,  fitting  expression  of  the  religious  aspira- 
tions of  man.  There  was  no  emotion,  no  hope,  no  fear,  no 
worship,  no  prayer,  that  the  human  heart  seemed  capable  of 
that  did  not  find  fitting  and  complete  utterance  for  itself 
through  the  channels  of  the  Church.  It  not  only  satisfied 
man  intellectually,  it  satisfied  him  religiously. 

One  other  thing.  Whatever  may  be  true  of  the  Church 
to-day,  we  must  remember  that  in  those  ages,  for  some  hun- 
dreds of  years,  the  Church  stood  for  humanity.  It  was  the 
grandest  humanitarian  organization  on  the  face  of  the  earth. 
It  stood  for  democracy.  It  stood  for  the  essentially  human 
as  against  race,  as  against  feudal  power,  as  against  kings  and 
emperors. 

Consider  for  a  moment  the  magnificent  power  of  the 
Church  during  these  centuries  and  the  magnificent  way  in 
which  she  wielded  it.  Think  how  it  stood  for  man.  It  was 
an  organization  spread  all  over  Europe, —  not  Roman,  not 
French,  not  Spanish,  not  German,  not  English,  simply  human. 
In  her  churches,  kings  and  beggars  knelt  on  one  footing  in 
the  presence  of  the  one  Supreme  Being  whose  greatness 
dwarfed  and  blotted  out  all  our  petty  human  distinctions. 
Consider  the  educative  power  of  the  fact  that  at  that  time 
the  papal  see  itself  was  freely  open,  as  our  presidency  is  to- 
day, to  the  lowest-born  peasant  in  all  Europe.  It  was  not 
an  uncommon  thing  for  a  peasant  to  become  pope.  Brains, 
character,  the  natural  power  of  leadership, —  these  in  the 


3<D  Signs  of  the  Times 

Church  during  those  ages  came  to  the  front,  so  that,  when  a 
man  reached  the  papal  chair,  whether  he  was  good  according 
to  our  standard  or  bad,  wise  or  ignorant,  you  might  be  sure 
that  he  was  there  by  virtue  of  natural  powers  of  leadership, 
not  because  of  birth  or  any  distinction  of  nationality  or  of 
any  other  type  or  kind  of  power. 

The  Church,  then,  during  these  ages  was  the  great  repre- 
sentative of  man.  It  claimed  and  it  exerted  also  supreme 
power  over  all  kingdoms ;  and,  in  the  main,  it  exerted  it  wisely. 
In  the  main,  it  exerted  that  power  for  the  benefit  of  humanity. 
It  beat  down  the  tyrant,  the  oppressor,  him  who  was  so  mighty 
that  there  was  no  other  power  in  Europe  that  could  match 
him.  It  stood  up  for  the  weak  and  the  oppressed.  It  was 
the  champion,  the  ally  of  man  against  kings,  against  lords, 
against  despotisms  of  every  kind.  The  Church,  then,  in 
these  three  great  regards  —  intellectually,  religiously,  and  so 
far  as  the  humanities  were  concerned  —  represented  the  best 
there  was  in  Europe. 

Let  us  now  note  one  or  two  things  that  can  be  said  about 
it  in  some  other  respects.  The  doctrines,  the  creeds,  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  were  substantially  those  which  came  to  be 
the  creeds  of  Protestant  Orthodoxy.  And  I  am  free  to  say 
that,  in  many  of  those  points  wherein  the  papal  doctrine 
to-day  differs  from  the  orthodox  Protestant,  I  am  compelled 
to  sympathize  with  the  Church  of  Rome.  Let  me  give  you 
one  or  two  illustrations  for  example. 

The  doctrine  of  the  Roman  Church  concerning  inspira- 
tion, concerning  the  Bible,  seems  to  me  much  more  rational 
than  that  of  Protestant  Orthodoxy.  The  Church  claims 
that  it  is  not  the  Book  primarily  that  is  inspired.  It  is  the 
Church  —  the  living  body  of  God  on  earth  —  that  is  in- 
spired by  the  presence  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  is  its 
breath.     It  claims  that  the  Bible  is  only  one  utterance  of  the 


The  Roman  Church  31 

Church,  of  no  more  authority  than  any  utterance  which  it 
may  give  of  its  beliefs  or  aspirations  to-day. 

Then  take  the  doctrine  of  the  Catholics  concerning  mira- 
cles. The  Protestant  claim  is  that  there  was  a  little  time 
during  the  first  century  when  miracles  were  performed ;  but 
all  that  we  have  to-day  by  which  we  can  authenticate  them 
or  attempt  to  do  so  is  a  record  that  says  that  certain  people 
saw  such  and  such  wondrous  things  performed  eighteen  hun- 
dred years  ago.  Who  they  were  that  performed  them,  who 
saw  them,  or  who  it  was  that  made  the  record  concerning 
them,  of  these  things  we  are  mainly  ignorant.  What  does 
the  Church  claim  ?  The  Roman  Church  claims  that  this 
living  body  of  God  on  earth,  inspired  by  the  eternally  pres- 
ent spirit,  is  capable  to-day,  when  there  is  occasion  for  it, 
of  exercising  miraculous  powers  precisely  as  it  did  in  the 
earlier  centuries  ;  and  this  seems  to  me  of  the  two  much 
more  the  rational  claim.     These  only  as  illustrations. 

One  other  point  I  wish  to  mention,  and  that  is  the  mag- 
nificent organization  of  the  Roman  Church.  Never  in  the 
history  of  this  world  has  there  been  anything  to  match  it. 
The  only  thing  that  in  any  way  can  be  spoken  of  as  a  par- 
allel is  the  wondrous  organization  of  the  Roman  Empire; 
but  that  was  secular,  political.  Never  has  a  church  been  so 
wondrously,  wisely  organized  for  power,  for  dominion,  as 
is  the  Roman  Church.  Consider,  for  a  moment,  how  strong 
that  is  where  all  Protestant  organizations  are  weak.  It  had 
a  place  within  its  limits  and  a  work  for  every  man,  every 
woman,  every  child,  who  cared  to  consecrate  himself  to  it. 
The  woman  of  fashion,  weary  of  the  world,  widowed,  per- 
haps left  dependent  in*  mid-life,  had  her  refuge,  her  work, 
and  her  consolation  in  the  Church.  The  old  soldier,  weary 
of  fighting,  weary  perhaps  of  dissipation,  having  drunk  the 
cup  of  life  to  the  very  dregs,  was  offered  an  asylum  in  the 


32  Signs  of  the  Times 

Church, —  a  place  to  reform,  to  cast  off  his  old  life,  to  live  a 
new  life  of  consecration  and  of  hope.  So  there  was  not 
a  single  power,  faculty,  or  aspiration  of  the  human  heart 
that  the  Roman  Church  at  that  time  did  not  in  a  measure, 
at  any  rate,  appeal  to  and  satisfy. 

One  thing  more  I  must  mention, —  one  service  that  we 
have  no  right  to  forget.  After  the  Roman  Empire  was 
broken  up,  Europe  was  inundated,  swamped,  by  barbarism  ; 
and  to  the  Church  we  owe  it  that  the  wrecks,  the  fragments, 
all  that  was  left  of  the  ancient  learning  of  the  world,  was 
preserved  in  its  ark,  and  carried  across  the  flood,  to  be 
landed  on  that  new  continent  that  represents  the  modern 
world.  The  Church  was  at  that  time  the  preserver  of  the 
world's  learning  and  its  hope  of  a  future.  In  the  monas- 
teries up  in  the  mountains,  on  Mount  Sinai,  in  deserts  in 
Asia,  in  the  forests  of  Northern  Europe,  clear  to  England, 
these  pious,  devoted,  learning-loving  monks  spent  their  lives 
in  copying  and  caring  for  the  masterpieces  of  ancient  liter- 
ature, keeping  them  for  the  time  when  Europe  should  wake 
up  from  its  long  sleep  and  desire  to  quench  its  thirst  once 
more  at  these  perennial  fountains  of  living  waters.  And 
just  here  in  this  service  which  the  Catholic  Church  rendered 
to  the  modern  world  lay  the  seeds,  at  any  rate,  of  its  decay. 
For  one  thing  you  must  note  ;  for  it  is  so  important  that  the 
whole  argument  turns  upon  it.  Unfortunately  for  the  Cath- 
olic Church, —  and  yet  it  could  never  have  been  the  Catholic 
Church  on  any  other  terms, —  it  had  advanced  the  claim 
of  absolute  infallibility.  It  represented  God  on  earth.  Its 
theological  utterance  was  the  very  voice  of  God.  Its  theories 
concerning  the  world,  concerning  God,  concerning  the  past 
history  of  man  and  his  destiny, — these  theories  it  announced, 
not  as  guesses,  not  as  speculations,  not  as  the  result  of  the 
best  study  that  could  be  given  to  the  subject,  but  as  the 


The  Roman  Church  33 

undoubted  and  eternal  truth  of  God.  And  yet  what  were 
these  theories  ?  The  theory  of  the  earth,  of  the  heavens,  of 
the  creation  and  nature  of  man,  of  God,  the  purpose  in 
creation,  the  method  of  redemption, —  all  these  things  were 
either  inherited  legends  that  had  come  down  from  an  uncrit- 
ical and  ignorant  barbaric  past  or  they  were  the  speculations, 
the  guesses,  of  people  then  living,  the  philosophic  attempts 
to  render  the  best  account  of  things  that  they  could.  But, 
whatever  their  origin,  the  Roman  Church  accepted  these  as 
infallible  revelations  of  God,  and  committed  its  claim  to 
infallibility  to  the  test  of  their  truth. 

Then  what  happened?  This  ancient  learning  that  the 
Church  had  been  preserving  began  to  be  studied  when  the 
old  conflicts  were  a  little  lulled  and  the  people  had  time  for 
thought.  Schools  sprang  up  in  the  East,  in  Spain,  in  Paris, 
at  Oxford,  where  this  ancient  learning  was  studied  anew. 
People  were  roused  again  to  the  interest  which  the  old 
Greeks  had  begun  to  show  in  science  and  in  philosophical 
speculations.  Then  Columbus  sailed,  and  the  flat  world 
became  round.  The  mariner's  compass  was  invented,  gun- 
powder came  into  use  as  a  mode  of  warfare ;  then  the  print- 
ing-press followed;  and  the  intellectual  enthusiasm  of  the 
world  was  aroused.     The  world  had  begun  visibly  to  grow. 

What  was  the  result  ?  The  inevitable  result  that  the  hard 
and  fast  and  infallible  theories  of  the  Church  were  burst 
through  on  every  hand ;  and  the  Church  began  its  long 
battle,  which  it  has  kept  up  from  that  day  to  this,  for  intel- 
lectual supremacy.  It  could  not  admit  a  mistake.  It  could 
not  change.  Therefore  it  must  fight.  It  must  fight  the  dis- 
coveries in  astronomy.  It  must  fight  the  new  light  that  had 
come  into  chemistry.  It  must  fight  the  new  physics,  the 
new  geology,  the  new  biology,  the  new  political  economy, 
the  new  social  ideas  of  the  world.     So  it  is  perfectly  consist- 


34  Signs  of  the  Times 

ent  and  in  keeping  that  almost  the  last  thing  Pius  IX.r 
the  first  pope  declared  to  be  infallible  in  his  own  person, 
should  die  just  as  he  had  launched  his  universal  curse 
against  all  modern  learning  and  modern  civilization.  But, 
mark  you,  it  is  no  fault  of  the  Church,  except  that  the 
Church  made  the  mistake  of  claiming  to  be  infallible.  It 
only  means  that  the  world  has  outgrown  the  Church  at 
every  point,  so  that  intellectually  it  no  longer  satisfies  the 
thought  of  man.  New  knowledge  of  this  world,  of  God,  of 
man  and  his  origin  and  nature,  new  knowledge  concerning  all 
these  points  that  the  Church  had  declared  forever  settled,  has 
sprung  up;  and  the  Church  with  its  infallible  theories  simply 
cannot  adopt  these  without  suicide.  It  must  protect  its  claim 
to  infallibility  or  accept  the  modern  world.  It  is  nothing  less 
than  a  duel  to  the  death  between  the  intellect  of  man  and 
the  Roman  Church.  And  those  who  believe  in  God  and  in 
truth  have  very  little  question  as  to  where  shall  lie  the 
victory. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  religious  nature  of  man  began  to 
expand.  It  desired  to  express  itself  through  new  rituals, 
new  creeds,  to  give  utterance  to  new  thoughts  about  God 
and  to  these  new  and  higher  aspirations.  It  began  to  have 
a  better  thought  of  God  than  that  which  had  been  embalmed, 
like  a  mummy,  in  the  old  creeds.  It  began  to  have  a  better 
thought  about  man,  about  society.  So  there  was  this  revolt 
\n  the  interest  of  this  determination  to  be  free,  to  utter  and 
express  these  grander  and  higher  religious  aspirations  of 
the  world.  So  Luther  led  off  half  Germany;  so  England 
broke  away  from  the  Catholic  Church ;  and  so  all  the  high- 
est and  finest  thinkers  of  the  world,  with  few  exceptions, 
have  followed  or  are  following  their  example. 

Then,  once  more.  I  said  that  one  of  the  grandest  things 
about  the  Church  at  the  time  when  it  held  its  supremacy 


The  Roman  Church  35 

over  everything  was  the  fact  that  it  stood  for  man  against 
tyrants  and  kings.  The  attitude  of  the  Church  has  been 
reversed,  and  reversed  with  perfect  naturalness  and  of  neces- 
sity. The  Church  had  claimed  to  be  infallible,  to  have  a 
right  to  supremacy;  and,  when  that  supremacy  was  chal- 
lenged, when  its  right  was  denied,  then  it  began  to  reach 
out  after  power  to  enforce  its  supremacy.  What  must  it  do, 
then,  but  ally  itself  with  those  powers  that  it  had  once  defied  ? 
It  must  have  kings  and  lords  and  nobles  at  its  back,  holding 
the  temporal  sword  while  it  wielded  the  spiritual.  So  the 
Church,  in  a  perfectly  natural,  logical  way,  instead  of  being 
the  champion  of  humanity,  became  its  tyrant ;  and  it  has 
played  the  part  of  repression,  attempting  to  keep  the  people 
down,  ignorant,  submissive  to  its  decrees,  for  the  last  several 
hundred  years. 

Through  this  process  which  has  now  been  going  on  for 
a  long  time,  what  has  happened  in  Europe  ?  I  wish  to  hint 
at  one  or  two  things.  And,  if  there  is  anybody  in  Boston 
who  is  still  trembling  as  to  the  possible  plans,  projects,  and 
machinations  of  the  Roman  Church,  I  wish  he  would  care- 
fully note  a  few  historic  facts.  It  seems  to  me  utterly  incom- 
prehensible how  any  man  who  has  an  intelligent  idea  of  the 
history  of  the  Catholic  Church  for  the  last  five  hundred 
years  can  stand  in  any  sort  of  awe  or  fear  in  regard  to  its 
future.  Why,  it  was  only  a  little  while  ago  that  Rome  held 
Europe  in  its  grasp.  Where  is  it  now?  All  the  leading 
thinkers,  the  leading  people  of  Europe,  look  upon  it  with 
half-contemptuous  pity  as  an  antiquated  and  outgrown  thing. 

How  is  it  in  Italy,  its  seat  and  home  ?  Colonel  Ingersoll 
said  in  an  address  some  years  ago,  when  he  was  inveighing 
bitterly  against  the  Church,  as  is  his  wont,  that  the  Roman 
Church  had  "reduced  Italy  to  a  hand-organ  and  Spain  to 
a  guitar,"  which  is  substantially  true.     And,  if  Italy  to-day 


36  Signs  of  the   Times 

is  coming  to  be  something  more  than  a  hand-organ,  it  is 
because  of  Victor  Emanuel  and  United  Italy.  It  means  the 
taking  away  of  the  temporal  power  of  the  pope  and  the 
establishment  of  the  capital  at  Rome ;  taking  the  education 
of  the  people  out  of  the  hands  of  the  clergy  and  intrusting  it 
to  the  secular  power ;  the  disestablishing  of  monasteries  and 
seizing  their  revenues  and  lands  and  applying  them  to  the 
use  of  men  instead  of  to  the  Church.  There  is  no  place  on 
the  face  of  this  earth  to-day  where  Rome  is  weaker  than  at 
Rome.  And  yet  people  are  trembling  with  fear  because, 
apparently,  they  do  not  know  history. 

How  is  it  in  France  ?  Those  who  claim  to  know  will  tell 
you  that  France  is  made  up  of  two  things, —  popular  supersti- 
tion and  acquiescence  in  the  rites  of  the  churches,  so  far  as 
observances  go,  and  wide  and  almost  universal  irreligion. 

How  is  it  in  Spain  ?  I  have  been  there  this  summer. 
What  is  the  history  of  the  Church  in  Spain  ?  Spain  used  to 
be  the  mightiest  power  on  earth,  and  the  Catholic  Church 
was  at  the  head  of  its  power.  What  is  it  to-day  ?  Even  in 
Spain,  which  is  most  Catholic  of  all  Catholic  countries,  the 
churches  are  rich,  the  people  are  poor.  The  people  are  ig- 
norant, superstitious ;  and  this  great  Catholic  country  is  so 
weak  that  Europe,  the  great  civilized  nations  of  the  world, 
never  even  stop  to  pay  it  the  poor  compliment  of  asking  its 
opinion  on  any  live  subject.  Spain  is  counted  out.  It  lies 
one  side  of  the  great  onward  march  of  the  world.  Why  not? 
The  Catholics  drove  out  the  Moors  with  their  learning. 
They  drove  out  the  Jews  with  their  learning  and  enterprise, 
and  for  hundreds  of  years  cut  off  the  head  of  any  man  who 
dared  to  give  utterance  to  a  new  thought.  According  to  its 
own  claim,  that  the  best,  the  most  intelligent,  the  most  virt- 
uous people  are  those  who  are  serving  the  Church  in  official 
capacities,  for  centuries  it  has  carried  out  its  programme  of 


The  Roman  Church  37 

making  them  celibates,  and  letting  only  the  meanest,  most 
ignorant,  and  most  superstitious  and  vicious  people  have  any 
children.  What  can  you  expect  of  a  country  after  a  policy 
like  that,  continued  for  ages  ?  Naturally  enough,  the  end  is 
the  "  guitar  "  and  the  bull-fight. 

The  power  of  Rome,  then,  is  broken  in  Europe. 

But  what  of  this  country  ?  Thousands  of  people  are  afraid 
that  it  is  going  to  be  re-established  here.  Why?  Has 
Rome  converted  in  America  any  great  leaders,  political,  re- 
ligious, or  intellectual  ?  Note  one  thing.  What  the  wise 
people  think  in  one  age  the  common  people  are  going  to 
think  in  the  next.  What  are  the  wise  people  thinking  in 
America  ?  The  number  of  Catholics  is  increasing  in  Amer- 
ica, it  is  said.  Of  course  it  is,  and  for  two  causes, —  chiefly 
through  immigration ;  and,  when  they  reach  here,  these  peo- 
ple have  children  that  they  train  in  the  Church.  Is  it  in- 
creasing in  any  other  sense  in  this  country  ?  When  you 
bring  a  man  from  Europe  who  was  a  Catholic  before  he  left 
Europe  and  land  him  in  Castle  Garden,  you  do  not  double 
the  number  of  Catholics  in  the  world.  You  simply  move 
one  from  one  place  to  another.  If  I  had  a  pile  of  pebbles 
on  this  platform,  and  should  carry  them  from  one  side  to  the 
other,  there  would  be  no  more  pebbles  when  I  got  through. 
These  are  the  ways  in  which  the  Catholic  Church  is  in- 
creasing. 

Now  let  me  attempt  fairly  and  simply  as  I  may  to  forecast 
what  probably  is  to  be  the  future  of  the  Church.  The 
Roman  Church  will  exist  perhaps  some  centuries  yet.  I  do 
not  know.  It  will  exist,  and  it  ought  to  exist,  so  long  as  it 
best  satisfies  the  thought,  the  religious  aspirations,  and  the 
moral  needs  of  any  class  in  the  community.  The  only  way 
that  religions  are  killed  is  by  being  outgrown.  They  never 
are  killed  by  direct  attack,  by  argument,  by  abuse ;  and  cer- 


38  Signs  of  the  Times 

tain  persons  of  this  city  who  are  wasting  their  time  and  their 
temper  in  the  abuse  of  the  Roman  Church  would  do  well 
to  learn  this  fact, —  that  abuse  of  this  sort  only  results  in 
reaction.  It  touches  the  pride,  the  character,  the  race  prej- 
udice and  religious  enthusiasm  of  the  people,  and  welds 
them  together.  Almost  the  only  fear  I  have  of  the  Roman 
Catholics  in  the  next  few  years  in  this  country  turns  not 
upon  what  the  Roman  Church  itself  is  likely  to  do  half  as 
much  as  what  other  people  are  likely  to  do  concerning  it. 
If  you  only  leave  them  free,  treat  them  justly  and  fairly, 
they  are  subject  to  all  the  influences  of  this  modern  world. 

I  would  make  only  one  exception  to  this  general  tolerance. 
If  it  be  true  that  certain  priests,  Jesuit  or  otherwise,  have 
taken  a  solemn  oath  of  political  allegiance  to  the  pope  of 
Rome,  while  they  have  come  here  to  become  citizens,  they 
are  guilty  of  perjury;  and,  if  they  engage  in  any  external 
acts  of  positive  disloyalty,  then  I  would  treat  them, —  not  on 
account  of  their  religion  at  all,  but  on  account  of  their  crimi- 
nal attitude  towards  our  great  country  and  its  interests, —  I 
would  treat  them  exactly  as  I  would  any  other  disloyal  per- 
sons, restrain  them  of  their  liberty  or  banish  them  from  the 
land.  Otherwise,  leave  the  Roman  Church  to  precisely  the 
same  freedom  that  we  claim  for  ourselves.  I  believe  that 
the  spirit  of  our  democratic  ideas,  the  growing  intelligence 
of  the  world,  the  growing  liberality  of  thought  concerning 
that  which  makes  up  the  essential  thing  in  religious  life,  the 
nobler  conception  of  God,  the  higher  ideal  of  man,  of  soci- 
ety, the  brighter  hopes  for  the  future, —  these  are  destined 
gradually  to  disintegrate  the  Church.  It  will  exist,  as  I  said, 
for  many  years  perhaps ;  but  it  is  going  through  a  process 
of  change. 

Take  as  significant  the  attitude  of  the  Catholics  in  Ireland. 
The  pope  published  a  bull  interfering  with  what  they  re- 


The  Roman  Church  39 

garded  as  their  political  rights,  their  attempt  to  gain  Home 
Rule.  What  did  they  do  ?  They  were  on  the  eve  of  revolt. 
They  said :  "  We  will  take  our  religion  from  Rome,  but  not 
our  politics.  The  pope  has  gone  beyond  the  limits  of  his 
rightful  claim."  And  what  did  the  pope  do?  The  pope, 
perhaps  for  the  first  time  in  history,  explained  to  Catholic 
Ireland  that  he  did  not  quite  mean  what  they  had  supposed. 
Did  the  pope  ever  do  that  before  ?  Did  a  Catholic  people 
like  the  loyal,  warm-hearted,  enthusiastic  Irish  ever  dare  to 
take  that  attitude  against  a  pope  before  ?  There  may  be  a 
few  similar  cases  in  history.  But  just  now  they  are  signifi- 
cant of  a  temper  that  even  the  pope  cannot  tamper  with 
prudently. 

And  how  is  it  here  in  this  country  ?  I  believe  that  nine- 
tenths  of  the  Catholic  parents  of  America  are  in  their  hearts 
as  loyal  to  America  and  to  the  public-school  system,  for  in- 
stance, as  we  are.  Now  and  then,  under  the  influence  of  a 
few  enthusiastic  leaders,  they  attempt  to  galvanize  into  life 
the  parochial  schools ;  but,  when  the  test,  the  strain  comes, 
the  Catholic  parent  says,  "  I  take  my  religion  from  Rome ; 
but,  in  the  matter  of  educating  my  children  and  how  I  shall 
vote,  that  is  my  own  affair."  In  other  words,  the  power  of 
the  Church  is  weakening.  It  dares  not  assert  its  old-time 
claim  in  its  old-time  way.  Democracy,  education,  social 
growth,  those  things  that  we  mean  by  the  world's  advance, 
are  anti-Romish  of  necessity ;  and  the  Church  is  feeling  their 
power.  When  a  frost  comes  in  spring  and  freezes  over  the 
little  lake  or  pond  or  river,  you  do  not  think  that  the  glacial 
age  is  coming  back  again.  It  was  only  a  cold  snap  of  a 
night.  You  know  the  sun  is  coming  north,  and  that  spring 
is  in  the  air.  So,  let  there  be  a  Romish  reaction  here  or 
there,  who  fears  ?  God's  sun  is  wheeling  into  the  heavens, 
and  its  influence  is  telling  on  all  the  earth. 


4°  Signs  of  the  Times 

I  know  not  how  I  can  set  forth  my  conception  of  the  past 
and  the  probable  future  of  the  Catholic  Church  better  than 
by  comparing  it,  so  far  as  the  comparison  will  hold,  to  the 
history  of  an  iceberg. 

Away  up  in  the  north,  the  place  of  eternal    snows,  the 
glacier  gradually  flows  down  from  the  mountain  and  out  over 
the  land  until  a  huge  fragment  of  ice  hangs  over  the  sea 
The  law  of  gravity  by  and  by  severs  its  connection  with  its 
parent  glacier,  and  the  iceberg  is  free.     Hard  and  blue  and 
towering  and  grand,  but  threatening,  it  drifts  towards  the 
south.     There  is  no  change  apparently  day  after  day,  week 
after  week,  month  after  month.     The  sunshine  is  on  it ;  free 
warm  winds  are  blowing  against  its  sides.     Warmer  waters 
begin  to  surround  it.     If  it  strikes  against  a  ship,  woe  be  to 
those  who  are  sailing  the  seas !     But  gradually  a  change 
comes  on  it.    It  is  honeycombed  at  last  by  the  almost  imper- 
ceptible effects  of  those  influences  that  are  playing  about  it; 
and  some  day,  though  it  look  almost  as  mighty  as  of  old' 
anything,— a  pistol-shot,  a  wind,  a  change  of  current,— and 
it  totters  and  disappears,  and  the  sea  is  open  for  the  com- 
merce and  the  pleasure  of  the  world. 


LIBERAL  ORTHODOXY. 


I  hesitate  somewhat  in  electing  to  preach  upon  this 
subject,  because,  as  I  face  it,  I  see  two  dangers  to  which  I 
am  exposed.  In  the  first  place,  I  must,  perforce,  do  some- 
thing which  I  am  very  loath  to  do, —  I  must  repeat  myself. 
I  must  take  up  and  handle  again,  though  from  another  point 
of  view  and  with  another  purpose  in  mind,  certain  points  of 
doctrine  with  which  you  perhaps  regard  yourselves  as  already 
sufficiently  familiar.  My  theme,  however,  will  compel  me  to 
do  this,  because  I  cannot  define  Liberal  Orthodoxy  and  try 
to  tell  what  it  is  in  any  other  way. 

Then  another  danger  confronts  me.  I  fear  lest  my  pur- 
pose, my  motive,  in  it  all  may  be  misconstrued,  lest  I  may 
be  looked  upon  as  an  accuser  of  my  brethren,  lest  I  may  not 
be  regarded  as  speaking  from  a  stand-point  of  earnest  human 
sympathy. 

In  spite,  however,  of  these  dangers,  I  see  not  how  I  can 
pass  by  a  great  theme  like  this.  My  purpose  in  this  whole 
course  of  sermons  is  to  bring  you  into  acquaintance  first,  and 
so  into  sympathy,  with  the  great  phases  of  religious  thought 
and  life  that  make  up  the  present  time.  I  wish  you  to 
comprehend  this  age.  I  wish  you  to  see  what  are  the 
religious  forces  at  work,  and  to  understand,  so  far  as  I  am 
able  to  teach  you,  which  way  human  progress  lies, —  what 
you  ought  to  help,  what  you  ought  to  oppose,  that  we  may 
co-operate  with  God  in  helping  on  the  coming  of  that  "  far-off 


42  Signs  of  the  Times 

divine  event  to  which  the  whole  creation  moves."  For, 
though  as  I  grow  older  I  am  more  and  more  convinced  that 
the  influence  which  any  one  of  us  may  possess  is  com- 
paratively small,  sometimes  even  discouragingly  small,  I  am 
also  convinced  that,  since  the  movement  of  an  age  depends 
upon  the  majority  force  of  the  individuals  that  make  up  the 
world  at  any  particular  time,  so  it  is  our  bounden  duty  to 
see  as  clearly  as  we  can,  and  cast  our  influence  in  the 
direction  of  hope  and  growth  for  man. 

In  introducing  this  theme,  I  must  remind  you  once  more 
of  certain  things  with  which  you  are  familiar,  though  perhaps 
the  illustrations  which  I  use  will  not  be  repetitions  of  any 
that  I  have  used  before.  I  want  to  suggest  to  you  the  great 
change  of  theologic  climate,  so  to  speak,  which  is  going  on. 

It  is  within  the  memory  of  some  now  living  that  the  late 
Abner  Kneeland  was  arrested  in  Boston,  prosecuted,  and 
imprisoned  for  his  religious  and  theological  opinions.  And 
we  are  glad,  for  the  credit  of  our  Unitarianism,  that  the 
gentle,  wise,  strong,  the  foreseeing  man,  Channing,  was  the 
one  clergyman  in  the  city  who  came  forward  for  his  defence, 
—  not  at  all  because  he  sympathized  with  him  or  believed  in 
his  views,  but  because  he  believed  in  his  right  to  honestly 
hold  and  to  honestly  express  his  views,  whatever  they  might 
be.  But  this  is  the  significance  of  the  point  that  I  have  in 
mind, —  that  hundreds  of  men  are  holding  and  expressing 
much  more  radical  and  heretical  views  than  those  maintained 
by  Mr.  Kneeland,  and  nobody  thinks  of  raising  a  question. 

Something  like  twenty  years  ago,  a  personal  friend  of 
mine,  Rev.  Henry  Powers,  was  settled  as  a  Congregationalist 
minister  in  the  State  of  Connecticut.  For  the  first  time,  as 
I  believe,  in  history,  he  departed  from  the  settled,  or  estab- 
lished, usage,  and  invited  not  only  the  Congregationalist 
churches,  but,  I  think,  the  Universalist  church  of  the  town 


Liberal  Orthodoxy  43 

where  he  was  to  be  settled  to  sit  in  the  council  and  Rev. 
James  Freeman  Clarke  to  preach  the  installation  sermon. 
This  was  a  very  hopeful  sign,  though  it  was  not  at  all  a  log- 
ical thing  to  do.  But  we  are  not  discussing  the  logic  of  it  at 
present.  We  are  simply  noting  the  changes  going  on.  He 
was  so  far  ahead  of  his  time,  however,  that  measures  were 
taken  to  prosecute  him  for  heresy ;  and  he  would  undoubt- 
edly have  been  so  prosecuted  and  possibly  expelled,  if  he 
had  not  opportunely  been  called  to  Brooklyn,  thus  escaping 
from  the  jurisdiction  of  his  prosecutors.  Only  a  little  while 
ago, —  note  the  change, —  when  a  Congregationalist  minister 
was  to  be  settled  in  Springfield,  the  Unitarian  and  Univer- 
salist  ministers  were  invited  to  sit  in  the  council,  and,  so  far 
as  I  know,  nothing  more  has  happened  than  that  two  or 
three  of  the  stricter  churches  that  were  invited  declined 
to  join  in  the  movement.  But  nothing  like  prosecution  has 
even  been  threatened. 

I  have  here  on  my  desk  a  book  called  "  The  Kernel  and 
the  Husk."  I  brought  it  simply  to  hold  it  up  to  you  as  one 
of  the  signs  of  the  times,  one  of  the  indications  of  this  great 
change  which  is  going  on.  It  is  written  by  Dr.  Abbott,  one 
of  the  scholarly  and  critical  men  of  the  Church  of  England. 
So  highly  is  his  scholarship  regarded  that  he  was  the  one 
who  was  selected  to  write  the  critical  article  in  regard  to  the 
composition  of  the  Gospels  for  the  Encyclopaedia  Britannica, 
one  of  the  most  learned  works  in  the  world.  All  the  differ- 
ent departments  are  committed  to  the  hands  of  specialists. 
And  what  is  this  book,  "  The  Kernel  and  the  Husk  "  ?  In 
it,  the  author  attempts  to  strip  off  the  husk,  that  he  may  find 
the  kernel  of  truth.  And  what  does  he  strip  off  ?  He  strips 
off  the  whole  story  of  the  creation  of  the  world,  the  Garden 
of  Eden,  and  the  fall  of  man.  He  clears  away  completely 
the   doctrine   of    the   Trinity.     He   makes   Jesus   a   purely 


44  Signs  of  the  Times 

human  being,  born  like  the  rest  of  us,  dying  like  the  rest  of 
us,  the  only  peculiarity  being  that  he  was  so  completely 
filled  with  the  spirit  of  God  that  he  is  inclined  to  regard  him 
as  having  been  perfect, —  the  ideal  man, —  worthy  even  of 
worship,  and  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  authority  in  regard  to 
spiritual  matters,  but  only  a  man.  He  strips  away  all  the 
miracles.  He  thinks  that  they  are  simply  accretions  that 
have  grown  up  round  the  central  kernel  of  truth.  And  of 
course  he  is  no  believer  in  any  doctrine  of  everlasting 
punishment.  He  has  only  a  message  of  grand  hope  and 
trust  for  the  world. 

Only  a  little  while  ago,  a  very  significant  volume  was  pub- 
lished by  certain  ministers  of  the  Established  Church  in 
Scotland,  in  which  they  took  substantially  the  same  ground 
occupied  by  Dr.  Abbott.  And  I  hold  in  my  hand  a  report 
of  part  of  the  proceedings  of  a  great  meeting  held  by  the 
ministers  of  the  Established  Church  of  England  last  Octo- 
ber, in  Manchester.  Canon  Farrar  on  that  occasion  spoke 
in  the  strongest  way  concerning  the  Church's  old  attitude 
on  the  subject  of  the  nature  and  the  destiny  of  mankind. 
He  published  a  volume  only  a  few  years  ago,  called  "Eter- 
nal Hope,"  in  which  he  argued  against  the  old  doctrine. 
He  says  here  that  this  for  a  time  brought  upon  him  no  end 
of  opprobrium  j  that  he  was  looked  upon  in  many  quarters 
as  a  heretic,  and  he  says,  what  many  would  be  glad  to 
forget  and  many  go  so  far  as  to  deny,  that  it  is  not  long 
since  it  was  authoritatively  taught  by  the  whole  Church 
that  those  not  within  its  fold  were  to  look  forward  to  a  des- 
tiny of  endless  material  suffering;  and  he  denounces  that 
doctrine  with  all  the  power  of  which  he  is  capable,  and  re- 
joices in  the  fact  that  a  barbarism  like  that  is  being  out- 
grown. Canon  Farrar  is  one  of  the  scholars  and  mouth- 
pieces  of  the   Church   of   England,   being   connected  with 


Liberal  Orthodoxy  45 

Westminster  Abbey  and  one  of  its  most  popular  preachers. 
At  this  same  congress,  another  prominent  clergyman  spoke 
of  this  doctrine  as  a  hideous  nightmare  from  which  the  world 
was  at  last  beginning  to  awake. 

You  are  familiar  with  the  fact  that  the  attendants  at  large 
numbers  of  our  churches  to-day,  those  called  "  Orthodox," 
will  say  to  you  as  you  meet  them  :  "  Our  minister  is  almost 
as  liberal  as  yours.  He  no  longer  preaches  the  old  doc- 
trine of  foreordination ;  he  does  not  preach  the  old  ideas 
about  the  Trinity;  he  does  not  preach  everlasting  punish- 
ment any  more.  He  is  a  very  liberal  man."  Now  and  then, 
they  will  admit,  he  brings  out  some  one  of  the  old  doctrines 
merely  to  let  the  people  understand  that  he  knows  that  it  is 
still  in  the  creed,  or  to  satisfy  some  who  are  not  content  with 
the  more  humanitarian  preaching ;  but  the  staple  of  his 
preaching,  they  will  say,  is  pure  humanitarianism,  love  to 
God  and  love  to  man, —  his  duty  here  in  this  world  and  this 
hope  for  all  mankind.  No  matter  for  the  present  whether 
the  man  is  logical  in  so  preaching,  whether  he  ought  to  do  it 
occupying  the  position  he  does ;  I  merely  note  the  fact. 

Only  a  short  time  ago,  in  connection  with  the  discussions 
with  which  you  are  familiar  in  the  American  Board  as  to  the 
preparation  for  going  as  a  foreign  missionary  to  the  heathen, 
one  of  the  best  known  clergymen  in  this  immediate  neigh- 
borhood made  the  statement  that,  according  to  the  decision 
of  the  American  Board  as  to  what  constituted  fitness  for  the 
work  of  a  missionary  to  the  heathen,  there  was  but  one  Con- 
gregational church  in  the  city  of  Boston  whose  minister  was 
so  qualified.  In  other  words,  this  clergyman  in  a  public 
address  made  the  statement  that  every  one  of  the  Congre- 
gational ministers  of  this  city  was  a  liberal  orthodox,  with  the 
exception  of  one.  And  I  know  well,  by  personal  conversa- 
tion with  ministers  here  and  there,  how  this  old  scheme  of 


46  Signs  of  the  Times 

Orthodoxy  is  suffering  a  "sea-change"  into  something 
"strange,"  whether  it  be  "rich"  or  not, —  into  something 
unknown  to  the  fathers  and  that  would  not  be  recognized 
by  them. 

Now  I  wish  to  define  Liberal  Orthodoxy,  and  make  it  clear 
to  you  just  what  it  consists  in,  that  we  may  see  the  meaning, 
the  tendency,  the  drift,  and  what  perhaps  is  to  be  the  out- 
come. 

If  you  study  a  minister  who  occupies  at  the  present  time  a 
Liberal  Orthodox  position,  you  will  find,  as  I  have  already 
hinted,  that  he  is  distinguished,  so  far  as  the  fact  of  his 
church  creed  is  concerned,  more  for  the  things  that  he  does 
not  preach  than  for  anything  else.  The  first  impression  that 
he  will  make  upon  you  is  one  of  question,  possibly  surprise, 
that,  occupying  the  place  he  does,  he  no  longer  touches  cer- 
tain doctrines  which  have  been  recognized  as  a  part  of  the 
orthodox  scheme  from  the  beginning.  He  lays  his  whole 
emphasis  on  trying  to  make  men  better;  that  is,  as  you 
would  say,  he  is  practically  a  Unitarian.  He  is  preaching 
for  this  world  ;  he  is  trying  to  build  up  human  society  here ; 
he  is  trying  to  make  men  honest,  true,  kind,  helpful  towards 
their  fellow-men. 

Now,  in  order  that  I  may  clearly  define  the  position  of 
men  like  this,  I  must  encounter  the  danger  of  repetition.  I 
must  take  two  or  three  of  the  great  historic  doctrines  of  the 
Church,  and  let  you  see  what  they  are,  and  then  tell  you  the 
position  that  Liberal  Orthodoxy  holds  concerning  them. 

In  the  first  place,  let  us  look  at  the  Bible.  What  was  the 
old  orthodox  view  of  the  Bible  ?  You  know  well  enough. 
A  hundred  years  ago,  it  was  looked  upon  by  all  orthodox 
churches  as  an  infallible  book,  a  revelation  miraculously 
given  to  the  world,  just  as  miraculously  as  though  it  had 
been  handed  down  by  the  hands  of  God  himself  out  of  the 


Liberal  Orthodoxy  47 

clouds,  as  tradition  said  that  the  tables  of  stone  were  given  to 
Moses.  They  believed  that  the  words  of  the  Bible  were  as 
literally  written  by  God  as  though  they  had  been  the  work 
of  his  fingers,  as  it  was  said  the  ten  commandments  were 
written  on  tables  of  stone.  Some  of  the  old  Puritans,  soon 
after  the  Reformation,  went  so  far  as  to  say  and  teach  that 
every  word,  letter,  and  every  significant  point  that  played  a 
part  in  the  punctuation  or  emphasis,  was  inspired.  You 
will  see  that  that  was  a  perfectly  consistent,  logical  doctrine. 
The  moment  that  a  point  like  that  is  surrendered,  those  who 
give  it  up  are,  as  they  say  we  Unitarians  are,  all  at  sea.  But 
it  was  found  that  this  could  not  be  held.  For  example,  Pro- 
fessor Park  used  to  make  a  point  like  this.  He  referred  to 
the  passage  in  John,  where  it  describes  the  disciples  sailing 
over  the  lake  near  Capernaum,  when  Jesus  is  said  to  come  to 
them,  walking  on  the  water,  after  they  had  rowed  five-and- 
twenty  or  thirty  furlongs.  Professor  Park  used  to  say  that 
they  had  rowed  either  twenty-five  or  thirty  furlongs;  both 
statements  could  not  be  true,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  knew 
which  it  was,  but  he  chose  to  express  himself  in  this  indefi- 
nite, human  fashion.  He  used  to  refer  to  the  inscription 
placed  over  the  head  of  Jesus.  Even  the  casual  reader 
knows  that  these  inscriptions  are  not  alike  in  the  different 
Gospels.  Of  course  there  was  really  but  one  inscription ;  it 
was  not  both,  or  all  three.  But,  of  course,  the  Holy  Ghost 
knew  which  it  was  ;  and,  if  there  had  been  a  verbal  inspira- 
tion, he  would  have  reported  it  with  precise  accuracy. 
Points  like  this  compel  a  modification  of  the  old  verbal 
theory.  It  was  then  changed  into  the  plenary  theory, — 
the  theory  that  the  Bible  was  all  God's  word,  and  that 
it  taught  all  necessary  truth  with  no  admixture  of  error 
in  any  vital  matter.  This  was  the  plenary  theory  of  inspira- 
tion, and  this  is  the  one  declared  in  all  the  standards  pub- 


48  Signs  of  the  Tunes 

Iishing  the  orthodox  doctrine  still  concerning  the  Bible ;  yet 
this  theory  is  given  up  by  all  those  men  who  call  themselves 
Liberal  Orthodox.  They  admit  that  the  Bible  is  full  of 
errors.  They  admit  that  it  has  mistakes  in  its  history ;  that 
it  is  wrong  in  its  science ;  that  it  is  full  of  myth,  legend, 
allegory;  that  it  is  full  of  misconceptions,  human  ways  of 
looking  at  things. 

I  hold  in  my  hand  a  book  called  "The  Heart  of  the 
Creeds,"  by  an  Episcopal  clergyman  of  this  city.  His  pur- 
pose is  to  state  what  are  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  giving 
the  historic  creeds  in  the  light  of  modern  knowledge.  He 
does  not  claim  to  surrender  any  of  them  :  he  simply  remoulds 
them  in  the  light  of  higher  and  better  thought.  But  it  is 
one  of  the  most  curious,  most  naive  pieces  of  work  that  I 
have  ever  seen ;  for  there  is  not  a  single  one  of  the  doctrines 
that  is  not  so  modified  as  to  modify  it  out  of  existence  and 
leave  something  utterly  unlike  it  in  its  place.  He  here  admits, 
what  I  have  just  said,  that  the  Bible  is  full  of  legend,  myth, 
allegory,  mistakes  in  history,  in  science,  in  all  sorts  of  direc- 
tions; but  he  holds  that,  in  spite  of  this,  it  somehow  and 
somewhere  contains  all  essential  truth, —  all  that  it  is  neces- 
sary for  a  man  to  know.  But,  the  moment  you  take  a  posi- 
tion like  that,  who  is  to  decide  as  to  what  is  the  essential 
religious  truth  that  all  men  need  to  know  ?  It  comes  simply 
to  this.  The  moment  that  theory  of  the  Bible  is  maintained 
or  attempted  to  be  maintained,  this  is  the  result:  men  go 
through  the  Bible,  and  select  such  things  as  they  like  or 
such  things  as  they  think  ought  to  be  true,  and  decide  in 
their  own  minds  that  that  is  what  God  really  meant  to  teach. 
Of  course,  you  will  see  how  utterly  foundationless,  how  ut- 
terly illogical,  is  such  a  position ;  for,  the  moment  you  accept 
that,  you  have  as  many  Bibles  as  there  are  readers. 

Let   us  contrast   the   doctrine  of  the  old   creed   and  of 


Liberal  Orthodoxy  49 

Liberal  Orthodoxy  concerning  the  nature  and  condition  of 
man.  You  know  what  the  old  belief  was, —  that  man  was 
created  perfect  in  the  beginning  and  has  fallen,  and  that  now 
he  is  at  enmity  with  God,  corrupt  through  and  through, 
incapable  of  doing  right,  a  rebel  against  God,  deserving  his 
eternal  wrath,  and  sure  to  feel  its  infliction,  unless  he  escape 
in  the  one  special  way.  But  this  book  and  the  most  liberal 
preachers  to-day  teach  nothing  of  the  kind.  They  have 
modified  the  doctrine  of  the  fall  of  man  until  it  is  only  an 
allegory,  a  legend,  a  tradition,  a  bit  of  poetry. 

I  was  talking,  not  a  great  while  ago,  with  some  one  who 
said  he  still  believed  in  the  fall, —  not  in  any  actual  fall  of 
the  race,  such  as  the  Bible  tells  us  about  as  occurring  several 
thousand  years  ago,  but  something  like  this :  he  believed 
that  each  one  of  us,  as  we  come  to  consciousness,  wake  up 
to  an  experience  of  the  fact  that  we  are  sinful  beings,  imper- 
fect, that  there  is  evil  in  us  ;  and  this  is  the  fall, —  a  fall 
occurring  not  to  all  of  the  race  at  once,  but  occurring  in  the 
consciousness  of  each  individual  as  he  develops  a  knowledge 
of  right  and  wrong.  But  do  you  not  see  how  utterly  mis- 
leading it  is  for  a  man  to  face  a  general  congregation  and 
say  to  them  that  he  believes  in  the  fall  of  man  and  to  talk 
about  the  fall  of  man,  when  this  is  what  he  really  has  in 
mind  ?  The  plain  matter  of  fact  is  that  he  has  utterly  sur- 
rendered what  the  creeds  mean  when  they  speak  of  the  fall 
of  man,  and  he  has  put  something  entirely  unlike  it  in  its 
place. 

These  liberal  orthodox  do  not  believe  in  any  total  deprav- 
ity, in  any  ruin  of  the  race.  They  believe  that  we  are  sinful, 
imperfect  beings, —  we  all  know  enough  about  that,  —  that 
we  are  not  ideals,  that  we  are  struggling  and  are  battling 
against  the  lower  nature  and  climbing  up  into  the  higher 
life.     This  is  what  they  mean  by  the  doctrine  of  the  fall. 


50  Signs  of  the  Times 

Come  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  see  what  changes 
have  passed  over  that.  I  need  not  stop  to  tell  you  the  old 
ideas.  If  you  care  to  go  into  it,  you  can  look  at  the  author- 
itative statements  I  published  in  my  book  on  "  Religious 
Reconstruction."  The  definition  of  the  Trinity  was  that 
there  are  three  distinct  and  eternal  personalities  in  the  one 
God.  What,  now,  is  the  belief  concerning  the  Trinity?  I 
do  not  risk  contradiction  in  making  the  statement  that  there 
is  not  a  single  one  of  these  liberal  orthodox  preachers  who* 
believes  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  at  all.  I  mean  the  Trin- 
ity as  stated  and  as  it  stands  in  the  acknowledged  authorita- 
tive creeds  of  the  Church. 

What  do  they  believe  in  place  of  it  ?  They  believe  in  a 
sort  of  threefoldness  in  the  nature  of  God,  just  as  they  say 
there  is  a  threefoldness  in  man, —  body,  soul,  and  spirit. 
They  say  that  God  manifests  himself  now  as  what  they  call 
the  Father.  Looking  at  him  in  another  way,  he  is  the  Son. 
Looking  at  him  in  a  third  way,  he  is  the  Spirit.  Jesus,  on 
this  theory,  is  only  the  manifestation  of  the  divine  in  the 
sphere  of  our  human  life.  Here  is  not  one  shred  left  of 
historic  Orthodoxy.  I  have  no  fault  whatever  to  find  with 
that  kind  of  a  trinity.  If  that  is  Trinitarianism,  then  I  am 
a  Trinitarian.  I  not  only  believe  in  the  threefoldness  of  the 
nature  of  God,  I  believe  in  the  manifoldness  of  the  nature  of 
God,  and  that  he  manifests  himself  by  a  million  personalities. 
For  what  does  the  word  "  person  "  mean  ?  Originally,  it 
meant  the  mask  of  an  actor.  He  took  on  a  particular  mask 
standing  for  a  special  character ;  and,  while  he  wore  that, 
he  represented  that  person.  He  might  wear  a  thousand 
masks,  and  present  himself  in  a  thousand  personalities. 
God  in  history,  in  the  stars,  in  the  clouds  over  our  heads,  in 
the  beauty  of  the  dawn,  in  the  beauty  of  the  sunset,  in  the 
history  of  humanity,  in  human  love,  passion,  struggle,  ambi- 


Liberal  Orthodoxy  51 

tion, —  in  a  million  different  ways,  the  divine  manifests 
itself.  But  all  this  is  only  playing  with  words,  and  to  call 
anything  like  this  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  simply  an 
abuse  of  the  dictionary. 

What  did  they  believe  in  regard  to  the  atonement  ?  You 
know  what  it  was  in  the  old  time.  It  was  a  belief  that  man 
was  utterly  lost,  2nd  that  an  infinite  penalty  must  be  paid. 
God's  righteous  law  must  be  upheld  by  infinite  suffering. 
Man  must  be  purchased  by  the  blood  of  an  infinite  one. 
And  so  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  was  sent  forth  to 
be  born,  to  suffer,  to  be  put  to  death,  that  those  who  believed 
in  him  and  accepted  this  substitution  might  share  in  the 
merits  of  this  being  and  so  be  saved. 

But  now  what  ?  Jesus  is  only  a  man,  according  to  many 
liberal  orthodox.  With  others,  he  is  something  a  little  dif- 
ferent,—  they  hardly  know  what, —  a  little  more  than  man, 
a  little  less  than  God, —  something  hanging,  like  the  kaaba, 
that  holy  stone  of  the  Mohammedans,  between  heaven  and 
earth,  but  strictly  the  whole  of  neither.  Some  hold  an  ideal 
like  this  of  Jesus.  Others  say  that  he  is  only  a  man ;  but, 
whatever  the  theory  of  his  person  or  his  nature,  they  hold 
that  his  work  was  simply  the  manifestation  of  the  love  of 
God  to  the  race  and  a  revelation  of  the  universal  and  eter- 
nal law  of  sacrifice.  They  say  he  teaches  us  that  always, 
not  he,  but  we,  if  we  wish  to  become  divine,  must  accept  this 
law  of  sacrifice,  sacrificing  the  lower  in  us  ever  to  the  higher. 
The  atonement  has  come  to  this.  It  is  utterly  unlike  the  old 
doctrine  in  almost  every  respect. 

One  more  doctrine  will  I  notice,  and  that  is  the  doctrine 
of  the  destiny  of  man.  It  was  a  logical  part  of  the  old  sys- 
tem that  those  who  did  not  accept  the  terms  of  salvation 
should  not  be  saved,  but  should  suffer  forever  and  ever. 
But  this  doctrine   is  now  either   questioned  or   is   scouted 


52  Signs  of  the   Times 

openly  as  barbaric,  as  unworthy  of  God,  as  subversive  of  the 
very  scheme  of  divine  salvation  itself ;  and  this  not  by  those 
who  have  left  the  Church,  but  by  those  who  still  stay  in  it 
and  still  claim  to  represent  and  give  utterance  to  that  which 
is  the  old  original  doctrine. 

As  a  specimen  of  the  kind  of  transformation  going  on,  I 
must  read  you  one  note  from  this  "  Heart  of  the  Creeds," 
by  this  Boston  clergyman.  It  touches  on  the  nature  of 
Jesus,  but  the  lesson  of  it  equally  applies  to  any  of  the  doc- 
trines I  have  named.  I  wish  you  to  notice  these  words  very 
carefully.  "  When  we  say  of  Jesus  '  conceived  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  suffered  under  Pontius 
Pilate,  was  crucified,  dead,  and  buried,  and  went  into  the 
place  of  departed  spirits,' — when  we  say  this,  we  simply 
mean  to  declare  our  belief  in  the  facts  of  his  history,  what- 
ever they  are."  Why  should  not  I  come  back  from  a  jour- 
ney and  report  that  I  saw  something  which  was  black  and 
white,  and  then  add  that  what  I  mean  by  saying  that  is  that 
the  color  was  whatever  it  should  be  found  to  be  ? 

This  is  the  kind  of  transformation  through  which  these 
doctrines  are  passing ;  and  I  can  think  of  nothing  to  illus- 
trate it  so  simply  and  so  perfectly  as  that  brief  and  familiar 
dialogue  between  Hamlet  and  Polonius.  The  wily  courtier 
must  see  things  in  the  light  of  him  who  is  his  prince  and 
superior.  He  did  not  dare  to  contradict  or  disagree  with 
him,  and  so  his  eyes  must  see  after  the  pattern  that  is  cut 
for  him  :  — 


Ham.    Do  you  see  yonder  cloud  that's  almost  in  shape  of  a  camel  ? 

Pol.    By  the  mass,  and  'tis  like  a  camel,  indeed. 

Ham.    Methinks  it  is  like  a  weasel. 

Pol.    It  is  backed  like  a  weasel. 

Ham.     Or  like  a  whale  ? 

Pol.    Very  like  a  whale. 


Liberal  Orthodoxy  53 

So  these  doctrines  assume  in  shape  apparently  that  which 
the  dominant  authority  for  the  time  seems  to  make  neces- 
sary. 

Now  I  am  going  into  no  wholesale,  denunciation  of  these 
men.  I  only  wish  you  to  understand  their  attitude  and  see 
the  significance  of  it,  and  note  it  as  one  of  the  signs  of  the 
times.  I  shall  say,  and  say  with  all  the  emphasis  of  which  I 
am  capable,  that  it  has  no  right  to  this  name.  It  is  not 
Orthodoxy.  It  is  no  more  Orthodoxy  than  the  doctrine 
which  I  represent  upon  this  platform  is  Orthodoxy.  I  bring 
no  railing  accusation  against  men  occupying  this  position. 
I  do  not  even  say  they  are  dishonest.  I  only  say  I  should 
be,  seeing  things  as  I  do,  if  I  occupied  such  a  position. 

But  there  is  one  thing  that  touches  the  human  side  of  men 
in  my  position  now  and  then.  It  is  a  little  irksome  once  in 
a  while  to  have  a  man  who  occupies  this  position,  who  is  as 
clearly  an  out  and  out  rationalist  as  I  am,  stand  on  a  pedes- 
tal, a  little  superciliously,  and  look  down  on  me  as  a  heretic 
and  outcast.  It  is  not  always  altogether  agreeable,  and  par- 
ticularly when  a  man  like  this  will  confess  to  you,  in  private, 
all  these  beliefs,  and  you  know  that  he  does  not  speak  them 
from  his  pulpit,  and,  when  his  people  are  round,  you  know 
that  he  does  not  even  speak  them  to  you.  But  one  can 
afford  to  smile  at  these  weaknesses,  which  are  common 
enough,  and  recognize  and  be  glad  for  all  the  good  there  is 
in  this  general  attitude. 

I  wish  to  make  one  more  remark  about  it.  I  cannot  re- 
gard this  as  having  any  logical  basis.  It  certainly  has  no 
basis  in  the  Bible.  It  has  no  basis  in  history,  no  basis  in 
any  scientific  theory  of  the  world,  no  basis  in  criticism.  It 
is  in  a  position  of  ecclesiastical  and  spiritual  vagabondage, 
"  without  visible  means  of  support."  It  is  only  a  transition 
stage  towards  something  else.     But,  recognizing  it  as  such,^» 


54  Signs  of  the  Times 

recognizing  it  as  being  what  it  is, —  then  I  am  glad  to  recog- 
nize it,  glad  to  note  its  significance,  glad  to  read  in  it  the 
promise  of  a  better  time.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  there  are 
only  a  few  people  who  are  really  logical  or  who  care  much 
about  logic.  They  drift  along,  following,  as  all  forces  do, 
the  line  of  least  resistance,  getting  on  flounderingly,  but  get- 
ting on;  and  that,  after  all,  is  the  principal  thing.  So  I 
recognize  this  Liberal  Orthodoxy  as  a  sign  of  growth.  It 
means  that  the  old  religious  life  is  not  fixed,  not  hard,  not 
fast,  not  unchangeable.  It  is  the  same  kind  of  prophecy 
that  we  see  in  the  spring  just  after  the  snows  have  gone 
away  and  when  the  sun  begins  to  get  warm  over  our  heads. 
Still,  the  trees  all  look  as  though  they  had  been  fixed  in 
their  places  hard  and  fast  forever.  But  some  morning  you 
note  a  little  flush  between  you  and  the  far-off  blue  sky.  You 
can  see  the  buds  are  starting,  tiny  leaves  are  opening,  and 
you  know  that  the  eternal  life  is  mightier  than  the  fixity 
of  all  forms,  and  that  things,  whether  they  will  or  not, 
under  the  impulse  of  the  infinite  wisdom,  power,  and  love  of 
God,  are  growing.  And  so  Liberal  Orthodoxy  is  a  sign  of 
growth.  It  means  dawn.  The  sun  is  not  in  sight  yet.  The 
tiny  rays  are  creeping  up  the  sky.  The  hilltops  catch  the 
light  here  and  there,  and  the  shadows  are  beginning  to  stir 
a  little  uneasily  and  lift  themselves.  In  this  period  of  dawn- 
twilight,  it  is  no  wonder  if  people  do  mistake  the  shape  of 
the  mist  itself  for  the  eternal  and  changeless  Rock  that  it 
merely  clothes  for  the  time.  So,  many  of  these  beliefs  are 
only  changing  forms  of  mist.  Stirred  by  the  sun's  rays, 
they  will  lift  themselves,  and  show  the  real  beauty  and  glory 
of  the  real  world  of  God. 

So  this  Liberal  Orthodoxy  is  a  hopeful  sign  of  the  times. 
It  does  not  mean  the  decay  or  the  passing  away  of  religion. 
It  does   not  mean  the   decay  or   the  passing   away  of   the 


Liberal  Orthodoxy  55 

Church.  It  does  not  mean  the  loss  of  the  Bible.  It  does 
not  mean  the  loss  of  Jesus  from  his  grand  place  in  the  relig- 
ious life  of  the  world.  It  does  not  mean  the  loss  even  of 
religious  rites  and  symbols.  It  does  not  mean  the  loss  of 
anything  that  is  vital  to  the  growth  of  man.  It  only  means 
that  the  one  eternal  God-life  in  the  past  is  in  the  midst  of 
all  the  growth  and  change.  It  means  that  he  reshapes 
remoulds  things  age  after  age  ;  and,  while  they  are  in  the 
process  of  remoulding, —  while  they  are  neither  the  thing 
they  were  nor  the  other  and  better  thing  that  they  shall  be, 
—  they  must  perforce  seem  to  us  illogical,  unfinished,  out 
of  place  in  the  world.  But  wait.  "  God's  in  his  heavens," 
God  is  in  his  world,  God  is  over  all  and  in  all  and  through 
all. 

One  word,  however,  I  would  speak,  if  I  could  reach  the 
ear  and  the  heart  of  every  Liberal  Orthodox  man  in  America 
and  Great  Britain;  for  they  are  as  numerous  there  as  here. 
It  would  be  to  remind  them  of  the  voice  said  to  have  been 
heard  by  Moses  as  a  command  when  he  stood  with  his 
people  on  the  brink  of  the  Red  Sea,  Pharaoh  behind,  the 
impassable  waters  before,  the  people  trembling  and  afraid, 
not  knowing  which  way  to  go.  If  I  could,  I  would  utter  in 
the  ears  of  all  the  liberal  orthodox  people  of  the  world  this 
command  :  "  Speak  unto  the  children  of  Israel  that  they  go 
forward." 


UNITARIANISM. 


In  the  narrower  sense  of  the  word  "  Unitarian,"  Unitarian- 
ism  is  a  very  ancient  belief.  If  we  take  it  as  connoting 
merely  the  unity  of  God,  then  in  the  line  of  our  own  spiritual 
ancestry  it  is  at  least  as  old  as  the  earliest  of  Hebrew 
prophets.  How  much  of  belief  in  this  divine  unity  there 
may  have  been  underlying  the  obvious  idolatry  of  many  of 
the  other  religions  we  may  not  perhaps  be  quite  certain  to- 
day ;  but  there  are  traces, —  at  least  in  the  esoteric  thought, 
the  thought  which  the  priests  kept  as  their  own  peculiar  heri- 
tage, of  many  of  the  old  religions, —  of  this  belief  that  God, 
in  spite  of  the  diversity  of  manifestation,  was  really  one. 

The  Jews  were  Unitarians  in  this  sense.  So  were  and  are 
still  the  Mohammedans.  There  is  no  sort  of  question  that 
the  old  first  Church  at  Jerusalem,  the  first  Christian  Church, 
presided  over  by  James  the  brother  of  Jesus,  was  a  Unita- 
rian church  ;  that  the  churches  founded  by  Paul  were  Unita- 
rian churches.  Nearly  all  the  Christian  churches  for  the 
first  three  centuries  were  Unitarian.  This  does  not  mean, 
however,  that  the  trinitarian  belief  was  not  beginning  to 
manifest  itself  here  and  there,  gathering  headway  for  the 
time  when  it  should  be  finally  declared  the  orthodox  faith  of 
Christendom.  This,  as  you  are  aware,  was  about  the  first 
quarter  of  the  fourth  century.  At  that  time,  however,  we 
know  that  Unitarianism  was  put  down,  and  that  Trinitarianism 
came  to  the  front,  largely  from  the  personal  influence  of  the 


Unitarianism  57 

emperor  himself.  It  is  a  question  to-day  as  to  which  would 
have  been  declared  orthodox  had  it  been  left  to  a  popular 
vote  of  all  the  Christian  churches  of  the  time.  But,  after 
Trinitarian  ism  was  declared  to  be  the  religion  of  the  empire, 
of  course  Unitarianism  in  all  its  forms  was  declared  a  heresy, 
and  the  whole  effort  of  the  Church  and  of  the  empire  com- 
bined to  stamp  it  out.  Yet  Unitarianism  in  some  form  lived 
from  the  beginning  until  to-day.  Here  and  there  throughout 
the  Middle  Ages  was  some  grand  mind,  some  free,  brave 
man,  who  dared  to  think  for  himself,  and  dared  to  risk  his 
life  for  his  thought,  and  to  hold  by  the  life  of  God's  eternal 
truth  concerning  this  matter  as  fearlessly  as  concerning  all 
others.  And  in  almost  all  cases  this  type  of  men  were 
Unitarians,  handing  on  the  torch  of  truth  from  one  to 
another  across  the  dark  waste  of  the  Middle  Ages. 

Unitarianism  sprang  into  being  again  as  the  result  of  the 
freedom  that  came  with  the  Reformation.  And  it  has 
existed  in  an  organized  form  for  more  than  three  centuries  in 
South-eastern  Europe,  and  has  a  vigorous  and  flourishing  life 
there  to-day. 

That  which  concerns  us  this  morning,  however,  is  the  more 
modern  movement  of  Unitarianism,  which  means  something 
more  than  a  belief  in  the  unity  of  God  as  opposed  to  the 
trinity,  and  which  sprang  up  simultaneously  in  England  and 
in  this  country.  Of  course,  we  shall  devote  ourselves  only 
to  its  manifestation  here. 

It  was  inevitable  that  Unitarianism,  this  new  movement  of 
religious  life,  should  manifest  itself,  just  as  inevitable  as  is 
the  morning,  just  as  inevitable  as  is  the  sprouting  of  the 
grass  and  the  blossoming  of  the  flowers  in  spring;  for  Unita- 
rianism is  merely  one  indication  of  the  fact  that  humanity  is 
growing.  It  is  the  result  of  that  growth,  it  is  an  oppor- 
tunity for  the  manifestation  of  it.     It  indicates  that  humanity 


58  Signs  of  the  Times 

has  grown  in  two  particulars  especially ;  and  it  is  these  two 
particulars  which  I  wish  to  notice. 

Unitarianism  indicates,  in  the  first  place,  a  growth  of  the 
human  heart,  a  higher  manifestation  of  that  humanity  which 
we  call  specifically  humane, —  tenderness,  pity,  compassion, 
love,  sensitiveness  to  that  which  is  right,  to  that  which  is 
just.  Unitarianism  was,  I  think,  in  the  beginning,  more 
than  anything  else  a  moral  protest  in  the  interest  of  this 
higher  and  tenderer  sense  of  justice  and  right.  The  early 
Unitarians  declared  that  the  old  scheme  of  doctrine  which 
was  held,  to  be  orthodox  in  that  day  was  an  unjust  scheme ; 
that  it  was  not  righteous  on  the  part  of  God  to  do  what  the 
creeds  declared  that  he  had  done ;  that  it  was  not  righteous 
on  his  part  to  have  created  a  world  as  it  is  said  that  he  cre- 
ated this,  to  have  created  man  and  to  have  subjected  him 
to  temptation,  to  have  permitted  him  to  fall  and  then  to 
link  with  this  first  representative  of  the  race  his  descendants, 
all  who  should  ever  come  to  be  born,  so  that  they  all  on 
account  of  that  fall  should  be  under  the  wrath  and  curse  of 
God.  They  said  that  this  scheme,  including  the  fall,  the 
method  of  redemption,  the  destiny  of  those  who  were  not 
saved,  was  unrighteous.  The  heart  protested  against  it. 
They  could  not  and  they  would  not  believe  it.  This  was  not 
because  they  had  discovered  proofs  that  it  could  not  be  true, 
but  because  the  heart  of  humanity  had  grown  too  tender,  too 
humane,  to  believe  such  things  of  the  Father  in  heaven  any 
longer.  It  was  said,  you  know,  in  the  first  place,  that  the 
difference  between  Universalism  and  Unitarianism  was  that 
the  Universalists  believed  that  God  was  too  good  to  damn 
men  forever,  while  the  Unitarians  believed  that  man  was  too 
good  to  be  damned  forever.  I  think  it  is  nearer  the  truth  to 
say  that  the  Unitarians  held  to  both  these  positions.  Both  of 
them  sprang  out  of  this  revolt  of  the  human  heart  against 


Unitarianism  59 

these  teachings  concerning  God  and  man.  They  declared 
that  God  should  be  at  least  as  good,  as  tender,  as  true,  as 
merciful  as  they  were.  They  demanded  that  the  conception 
of  goodness  which  was  held  here  on  earth  should  be  the 
conception  which  should  be  applied  to  God  in  heaven,  or 
else,  they  said,  goodness  can  have  no  meaning.  If  God  be 
not  good  as  we  are,  and  as  we  expect  our  fellow-men  to  be 
good,  then  in  no  sense  that  can  have  any  meaning  to  us  is 
he  good  at  all.     This  was  the  revolt  of  the  human  heart. 

There  was  an  indication  of  growth  not  only  of  the  heart, 
but  of  the  intellect,  the  growth  of  the  mind  of  man.  Men 
came  to  demand  that  religion,  like  everything  else,  like  every 
other  department  of  human  thought  and  life,  should  be 
treated  as  reasonable.  They  declared  their  belief  in  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  human  mind,  in  that  reason  which  God  has 
given  us,  asserting  their  faith  in  it  as  the  measure  of  the 
reasonableness  of  that  which  was  presented  for  their  accept- 
ance. They  did  not  occupy  the  absurd  position  of  saying 
that  they  would  not  and  could  not  believe  anything  true  that 
they  could  not  understand.  No  one  was  ever  quite  so  un- 
wise as  that.  We  believe  to-day,  on  the  basis  of  scientific 
demonstration,  a  thousand  things  that  we  cannot  under- 
stand; but  we  know  they  are  true,  rationally  and  scientifi- 
cally demonstrated  to  be  true. 

The  early  Unitarians  had  no  idea  of  rejecting  all  mystery. 
They  simply  said  that  they  had  a  right  to  think,  that  they 
had  a  right  to  subject  whatever  was  brought  to  them  for 
their  acceptance  to  the  test  of  reason,  to  find  out  whether  it 
were  proved  to  be  true,  and  to  reject  it  if  it  were  not  so 
proved.  So  it  was  a  development  of  the  human  heart  and 
the  growth  of  human  reason  out  of  which  Unitarianism  was 
born. 

Think,  for  a  moment,  how  right  they  were  concerning  this 


60  Signs  of  the  Times 

matter  of  the  supremacy  of  reason.  If  a  man  stand  in  the 
presence  of  two  roads,  wondering  which  he  shall  take,  he 
decides  whether  he  will  take  this  one  or  that  one  for  some 
reason.  If  there  is  no  reason  why  he  should  take  one  more 
than  the  other,  then  the  whole  matter  hinges  upon  chance, 
impulse,  and  there  is  no  reason  involved  in  the  matter  at  all. 
If  a  man  accepts  a  reason  for  being  a  Christian,  by  that  very 
act  he  asserts  the  supremacy  of  reason.  If  there  is  no  reason 
why  a  man  should  be  one  thing  any  more  than  another,  then 
he  may  as  well  be  a  Buddhist,  a  Hindu,  a  Mormon,  as  to  be 
a  Christian.  The  very  minute,  then,  that  any  man  assents 
to  the  idea  that  reason  is  to  decide  his  course,  that  very 
minute,  by  implication,  whether  he  will  or  not,  he  is  a  ration- 
alist. Unitarianism,  then,  was  born  out  of  the  higher  devel- 
opment of  the  heart  and  the  mind  of  the  world. 

At  first,  it  was  traditional  and  textual.  It  did  not  occur  to 
the  early  Unitarians  to  question  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible, 
its  authority  as  a  divine  revelation  to  the  world.  Some  of 
their  early  scholars,  indeed,  did  trace  here  and  there  human, 
fallible  elements  in  the  Old  Testament ;  but  the  New  Testa- 
ment nearly  all  of  them  practically  accepted  as  infallible 
authority. 

It  did  not  occur  to  them  to  question  miracles,  to  question 
the  utterly  unique,  miraculous  position  of  Jesus.  Many  of 
them  believed  in  his  divinity  while  denying  what  was  called 
his  deity.  Many  of  them  believed  in  his  pre-existence, — 
that  is,  they  were  Arians, —  but  they  all  believed  that  he  was 
miraculously  sent  as  God's  special  messenger,  guide,  and 
Saviour  of  the  world.  They  occupied  a  position,  then,  inside 
the  New  Testament.  It  was  a  battle  of  texts  between  them 
and  their  opponents.  This  position  to-day,  I  think,  we  all 
recognize  as  illogical  and  untenable. 

For  what  is  the  Bible  ?     The  Bible  is  simply  a  great  relig- 


Uu  itarian  ism  6 1 

ious  literature.  If  they  could  find  a  text  that  proved  the 
unity  of  God,  their  opponents  could  find  a  text  which  at 
least  appeared  to  hint  the  trinity.  If  they  could  find  a  text 
which  proved  the  goodness  of  the  nature  of  man,  their 
opponents  could  find  a  text  to  teach  his  innate  and  utter 
depravity.  If  they  could  find  a  text  to  prove  the  universal 
fatherhood  of  God,  their  opponents  could  find  a  text  by 
which  they  could  prove  that  he  had  been  a  Father  to  the 
Jews  and  Christians  in  a  peculiar  sense,  in  which  he  was 
not  to  the  rest  of  mankind.  If  they  could  find  a  text  by 
which  they  could  prove  the  eternal  mercy  of  God,  and  so 
build  a  basis  for  eternal  hope,  their  opponents  could  find  a 
plenty  of  texts  which  appear  to  teach  the  endless  doom  of 
the  majority  of  mankind  to  endless  pain.  It  was  then,  as  I 
have  said,  a  battle  of  texts,  an  illogical  and  utterly  unten- 
able position. 

The  Bible,  as  I  have  said,  was  simply  a  religious  litera- 
ture, composed  by  a  large  number  of  people  during  a  period 
stretching  at  least  over  a  thousand  years.  It  represented  the 
opinions  of  a  vast  number  of  different  men,  so  that  there 
was  no  consistent  teaching  to  be  found  in  it,  as  a  whole,  con- 
cerning God  or  concerning  the  nature  of  man,  concerning 
the  nature  of  Jesus  or  his  mission  to  the  world,  and  the 
destiny  of  mankind.  It  was  full  of  conflicting  testimony,  as 
was  natural.  This  phase  of  Unitarian  life  was  the  first  step, 
the  utterance  of  the  right  of  reason. 

But  the  fathers  did  not  fully  see  to  what  lengths  that 
assertion  would  logically  carry  them.  They  were  not  pre- 
pared for  the  next  step.  Who  ever  is  ?  Will  the  world  ever 
outgrow  the  tendency  to  think  that  it  is  safe  to  go  only  as 
far  as  it  has  gone?  that  the  man  who  dares  to  take  the 
next  step  ahead  is  to  be  persecuted  and  put  down?  It  is 
disheartening  to  read    history  in  the  light  of   this   thought. 


62  Sig?is  of  the  Times 

The  great  leaders  of  the  world,  the  great  liberators,  hailed 
by  a  few,  persecuted  by  the  many,  at  last  establish  their 
grand  positions ;  and  then  their  very  followers  treat  them 
as  though  they  had  taught  the  last  word  that  God  intended 
to  speak  to  the  world,  and  are  ready  to  persecute  the  next 
man  who  in  the  same  spirit  of  this  divine  leadership  declares 
the  next  word  in  that  unfolding  revelation  that  began  when 
life  began,  and  that  is  never  to  end  so  long  as  there  is  the 
possibility  of  the  growth  of  thought. 

These  early  Unitarians  were  not  ready  for  the  next  move- 
ment. It  came  in  with  Theodore  Parker.  I  do  not  think 
Parker  was  the  inventor  of  it :  he  was  its  voice,  its  manifes- 
tation. It  was  in  the  air.  No  man  ever  creates  an  epoch. 
Rather  it  is  the  epoch  which  creates  him,  which  makes  him 
its  mouthpiece.  Theodore  Parker  was  one  of  the  grandest 
souls  that  ever  lived,  a  man  religious  in  every  fibre  of  his 
being  from  his  earliest  boyhood  up ;  a  seer,  reverent,  truth- 
ful, loving,  tender;  a  man  all  alive  to  the  touch  of  the 
enveloping  God;  a  God-intoxicated  man;  a  man  who  saw, 
felt,  heard  God  everywhere.  He  could  not  believe  that  God 
was  done  speaking  to  the  world.  He  was  as  ready  to  listen 
to  his  voice  this  morning  as  was  the  old  prophet  in  Judaea 
two  thousand  years  ago.  This  was  the  kind  of  nature  that 
the  man  possessed, —  a  nature  so  tender  and  sympathetic 
with  all  men,  so  full  of  love  to  all  mankind,  that  he  thrilled 
at  the  thought  of  any  and  every  injustice,  that  he  felt  him- 
self God-appointed  to  right  every  wrong. 

Theodore  Parker  preached  a  sermon  which  marked  an 
epoch,  on  "The  Transient  and  Permanent  in  Christianity." 
This  was  in  1841.  The  result  was  the  withdrawal  of 
fellowship  from  him  on  the  part  of  every  Unitarian  minister 
in  Boston,  with  the  exception  of  two.  Those  two  names 
ought  to  be  mentioned  reverently  and  in  honor  to-day,  be- 


Unitarianism  63 

cause  they  dared  to  stand  by  his  side  for  the  right  of  free- 
dom of  religious  utterance, —  John  T.  Sargent  and  James 
Freeman  Clarke.  This  sermon,  "The  Transient  and  Per- 
manent in  Christianity,"  might  be  preached  in  any  Unitarian 
church  to-day  without  raising  one  single  word  of  comment 
Indeed,  it  might  be  preached  in  many  a  so-called  Orthodox 
church  without  raising  a  ripple,  so  mild  does  it  seem.  But 
it  was  radical  at  the  time. 

What  did  Parker  ?  He  freely  announced  the  new  step 
which  Unitarianism  must  take  by  criticising  the  New  Tes- 
tament as  well  as  the  Old,  criticising  any  and  all  Script- 
ure not  only,  but  applying  reason  to  the  matter  of  the 
authenticity,  the  authorship,  and  the  correctness  of  texts. 
He  announced  that,  from  that  time  on,  truth  and  truth  only 
was  to  be  taken  for  authority,  that  there  was  no  authority 
above  truth,  that  truth  and  truth  only  was  the  voice  of  God. 
Not  only  then  did  he  apply  this  freedom  of  criticism  to  the 
Old  Testament  and  to  the  New,  but  he  took  another  step, 
which  then  seemed  little  less  than  sacrilege.  He  dared  to 
announce  his  belief  that  Jesus  was  purely  and  simply  a  man, 
natural  in  his  birth,  natural  in  his  death,  superior,  supreme, 
perhaps,  over  other  men,  but  only  by  virtue  of  his  openness 
to  the  inpouring  of  the  spirit  of  God. 

He  also  impugned  miracles,  not  only  as  touching  the 
nature  and  career  of  Jesus,  but  in  all  directions  asserting 
the  divineness  of  the  natural  order  of  the  world,  asserting 
his  faith  in  the  ability  of  God  to  govern  his  world  by  means 
of  and  through  this  natural  order,  leaving  no  necessity  for 
magic  or  miracle.  He  recognized  the  miraculous  in  the  mar- 
vellous order  of  nature.  He  abolished  by  a  stroke  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  natural  and  the  supernatural,  making 
the  universe  a  unity,  not  denying  that  which  had  gone  by  the 
name  of  the  supernatural,  the  spiritual,  and  the  divine,  but 


64  SigJis  of  the   Times 

enlarging  the  definition  of  nature  until  it  included  all  things 
in  heaven  above  and  in  the  earth  beneath. 

You  see  how  radical  the  change  was.  It  was  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  setting  Unitarianism  free  from  the  bond- 
age to  text,  a  bondage  to  the  old-time  habit,  a  bondage  to 
this  illogical  attitude,  and  making  it  free  to  face  the  great 
facts  of  the  universe  of  God  and  of  man. 

I  wish  now,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  after  this  little  sketch  of 
what  Unitarianism  has  been  in  the  past,  to  tell  you, —  mark 
the  distinction, —  not  what  Unitarianism  is  of  necessity,  but 
what  I  am  convinced  it  ought  to  be  and  must  become.  I 
shall  not  attempt  to  define  the  attitude  of  my  brethren.  I 
define  merely  my  own. 

Unitarianism  has  reached  a  point  in  the  history  of  the 
world's  moral  and  intellectual  development  when  it  can  and 
ought  to  plant  itself  squarely  on  this  one  position,  the  essen- 
tial religiousness  of  the  natural  order  of  the  universe.  It 
must  declare,  it  has  declared,  that  this  universe  is  not  one  of 
creation,  fall,  and  recovery,  not  one  of  catastrophe,  but  one 
of  natural  order  and  of  normal  growth.  The  natural  order 
of  this  world  is  a  divine  order.  The  world  is  not  secular, 
under  the  wrath  of  God,  to  be  redeemed  and  reclaimed.  The 
natural  order  from  the  beginning  till  to-day,  and  as  far  as  we 
can  trace  it  running  out  into  the  future,  is,  as  God  meant  it 
to  be,  a  divine  order,  appointed,  led,  lifted,  guided,  by  the 
hand  of  God  himself. 

What,  then,  does  religion  become  in  a  universe  like  this  ? 
Not  a  scheme  of  salvation,  not  a  plan  of  redeeming  man  from 
the  result  of  a  catastrophe.  It  becomes  a  work  of  adjust- 
ment, bringing  man  into  right  relation,  within  the  limits  of 
his  own  nature,  to  his  fellow-men,  and  in  right  relation  to  God. 
This  work  is  in  the  individual,  where  the  faculties,  powers, 
passions,  go  to  make  up  the  man.  It  makes  the  man  him- 
self a  divine  order,  to  start  with. 


Unitarianism  65 

Again,  it  is  the  work  of  reconciling  man  to  man,  of  bring- 
ing about  the  perfect  social  order  of  the  world.  It  is 
bringing  man  to  recognize  and  obey  the  divine  laws  that 
underlie  human  society,  and  in  accordance  with  which  it 
must  be  lifted  up  and  led  on  toward  perfection. 

It  brings  about  the  reconciliation  of  man  to  the  facts  of 
his  environment  in  the  physical  universe  and  to  the  facts  of 
his  environment  in  the  spiritual  universe,  man  as  soul  related 
to  God  just  as  truly  as  the  body  is  related  to  the  physical 
universe  about  him.  Religion  is  the  discovery  of  this  divine 
order  in  the  world,  and  bringing  men  into  accord  with  this 
order.  It  means  making  man  broader,  developing  the  indi- 
vidual, society,  government.  It  means  the  perfection  and 
the  divine  mystery  of  all  that  is  human, —  the  perfection  of 
life  here  in  this  world  and  of  course  its  further  growth  and 
progress  forever. 

In  the  first  place,  in  order  to  attain  this  knowledge  by 
means  of  which  the  reconciliation  can  be  effected,  it  means  the 
declaration  of  utter,  absolute  intellectual  freedom  in  religion. 
We  have  heard  freedom  talked  about  a  good  deal  in  the 
modern  world,  but  we  are  apt  to  forget  how  new  a  thing  it  is. 
Do  you  know,  until  the  liberal  churches  of  the  modern  world 
were  organized,  there  never  was  a  religious  organization  on 
the  face  of  the  earth  that  did  not  treat  free  thought  as  a  sin? 
Do  you  know  that  ?  Do  you  know  how  modern  this  freedom 
is  ?  Every  religion,  every  pope,  every  council,  every  synod, 
every  religious  organization,  from  the  beginning  till  modern 
times,  has  treated  the  free-thinker  as  an  outcast,  an  enemy  of 
God  and  man.  We  want  no  freedom  for  the  mere  sake  of 
freedom.  We  want  freedom,  because  we  believe  that  only 
through  the  result  of  free  investigation  can  the  truth  be 
found ;  we  want  freedom  for  the  sake  of  the  discovery  of 
truth;  the  discovery  of  truth  we  want  for  the  sake  of   the 


66  Signs  of  the   Times 

culture  and  development  of  man.  Modern  Unitarianism,  the 
Unitarianism  that  is  to  possess  the  future,  must  stand  for 
utter  individual  freedom.  We  believe  there  is  no  truth  in 
heaven  or  on  earth,  no  truth  in  the  past,  no  truth  in  the 
present,  the  discovery  of  which  will  not  redound  to  the  glory 
of  God  and  the  honor  of  man ;  so  we  must  be  free  to  search. 

In  the  next  place,  this  position  of  intellectual  freedom 
puts  us  in  a  position  which  we  ought  to  be  proud  to  occupy, 
a  position  that  no  other  religious  body  with  which  I  am  ac- 
quainted has, —  the  position  of  religious  leadership  to  the 
world's  intellectual  leadership.  There  is  no  reason  why  we 
should  not  be  in  perfect  sympathy  with  all  the  intellectual 
lights  and  leaders  of  the  world  ;  why  we  should  not  welcome 
all  their  light,  all  their  truth,  interpreting  it  on  its  religious 
side  for  the  uplifting  of  man.  We  are  fitted,  if  we  are  brave 
enough,  strong  enough,  broad-minded  enough,  to  be  the  re- 
ligious leaders  of  the  world's  intellectual  leaders,  to  take  our 
place  as  guides  toward  the  future  religious  development  of 
mankind. 

And  yet  this  need  not  take  away  from  the  ministry  to  the 
poor,  the  ignorant,  the  common  people,  the  masses  of  men. 
I  hold  a  different  opinion,  indeed,  on  this  point  from  that 
which  I  hear  expressed  by  my  brethren.  I  do  not  believe 
that  Unitarianism  is  specially  or  peculiarly  fitted  to  be  the 
religion  of  the  masses, —  not  because  there  is  anything  the 
matter  with  the  religion,  but  because  of  the  lack  of  taste 
for  the  simple  and  the  highest  on  the  part  of  the  masses.  If 
you  study  the  attitude  of  the  uneducated  masses  of  the  world 
in  any  direction,  you  will  find  that  it  is  not  towards  an  ap- 
preciation of  the  simple,  not  towards  an  appreciation  of  the 
highest.  They  do  not  choose  the  simplest  and  the  finest  in 
art,  in  literature,  or  in  any  department.  Something  that 
appeals  to  the  love  of  mystery  appeals  to  them  more 
strongly. 


Unitarianism  6? 

There  must  be  growth  on  the  part  cf  people  to  be  free 
from  fear  and  to  enable  them  to  appreciate  the  simple  as  the 
divinest  before  they  can  be  ready  for  the  leadership  of  our 
Unitarian  faith.  But  they  are  coming  more  and  more  rap- 
idly to  do  this,  so  that  we  need  not  despair  of  ministering  to 
all  classes  and  conditions  of  men.  But  we  can  only  minister 
to  them  by  as  much  as  we  teach  them  to  be  free,  to  be  inde- 
pendent, to  think  for  themselves,  and  to  appreciate  that 
which  is  best  and  highest. 

Occupying  this  position,  on  what  basis  can  we  organize 
ourselves  ?  We  cannot  be  organized  on  the  basis  of  a  creed, 
as  have  been  all  the  religious  organizations  in  the  past, 
though  not  at  all  because  we  object  to  creeds.  I  have  no 
objection  to  a  hundred  creeds.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to 
write  one  out  this  morning,  or  as  soon  as  I  have  time,  of 
any  length  that  any  one  can  desire,  giving  expression  to  the 
belief  I  hold  this  morning.  Only  this  is  the  position  of  Uni- 
tarians :  we  declare  that  the  world  is  growing,  that  to-mor- 
row a  man  may  discover  some  new  truth  that  no  one  knows 
to-day,  and,  if  he  does,  that  is  a  divine  truth  that  belongs  in 
our  creed,  and  so  the  creed  must  be  perpetually  revised. 
We  do  not  object  to  creeds  because  we  have  no  definite  be- 
lief, or  because  we  are  not  willing  to  give  expression  to  what 
we  do  believe,  but  because  we  are  not  willing  to  give  bonds 
to  any  man  that  we  will  not  learn  anything  new.  We  hold 
ourselves  perfectly  free  to  go  on  to  the  discovery  of  new 
truth  in  every  direction. 

What,  then,  can  we  organize  ourselves  upon  ?  We  have  a 
sufficient  basis  for  organization,  as  I  claim, —  the  basis  of  a 
common  purpose  to  find  the  truth,  to  live  the  truth,  in  the 
conviction  that  this  only  is  true  religious  service.  This  we 
call  devotion  to  God,  loyalty  to  him,  and  loyalty  to  man. 
This  is  the  basis  of  all  the  scientific   associations  of  the 


68  Signs  of  the  Times 

world.  We  can  indeed  incorporate  into  our  creed  as  un- 
changeable so  much  as  we  have  demonstrated  to  be  true 
beyond  a  question.  But,  concerning  anything  beyond  that, 
we  must  hold  it  open  to  revision. 

But  suppose  we  organize  on  the  basis  of  a  common  pur- 
pose, to  be  truth-seekers  and  truth-lovers,  to  find  all  we  can 
of  the  laws  and  the  life  of  God  in  the  universe  and  incor- 
porate that  as  fast  as  we  can  in  the  growing  life  of  humanity  : 
then  I  hold  that  we  need  no  other  basis  of  organization. 
The  brotherhood  of  man, —  not,  parrot-like,  echoing  back  and 
forth  from  city  to  city  and  State  to  State,  and  nation  to 
nation  and  hemisphere  to  hemisphere,  the  words  without  any 
regard  to  what  they  meant  when  they  were  first  formulated, 
but  to  see  that  they  utter  a  living  conviction  to-day,  the  sym- 
pathy of  men  all  over  the  world,  facing  forward,  trusting  in 
God,  trusting  in  the  universe,  trusting  in  the  integrity  of  the 
human  intellect,  trusting  in  the  growth  of  human  society ; 
facing  forward,  recognizing  as  true  all  which  has  been  dem- 
onstrated to  be  true,  and  cheering  each  other  on  in  the  en- 
deavor to  discover  that  which  is  new  and  better  than  the  old. 

I  have  only  one  brief  word  of  criticism  on  the  average 
attitude  of  Unitarianism  in  the  past  and  as  it  seems  to  me 
in  some  directions  to-day. 

I  think  I  have  noted  a  too  great  anxiety  on  the  part  of 
Unitarians  to  minimize  the  difference  between  them  and  the 
attitude  of  the  older  churches ;  to  try  to  believe  that  there  is 
not  much  difference ;  to  try  to  keep  the  sympathy  of  the 
older  churches ;  to  feel  out  for  a  hand-clasp  from  some  man 
who,  if  he  is  honest,  has  no  business  to  give  us  a  hand- 
clasp ;  to  seek  the  patronage  of  the  older  faith ;  to  rejoice 
over  any  token  of  sympathy  in  that  direction. 

Why,  friends,  if  we  are  very  much  like  the  older  churches, 
then  it  is  a  crime  for  us  to  exist.     We  have  no  business  to 


Unitariafiisjn  69 

exist  unless  we  are  so  much  unlike  them  as  to  make  a  reason 
for  our  coming  into  existence  as  some  new  thing.  If  I  be- 
lieved that  they  were  doing  the  work  that  God  calls  for  in 
this  age,  I  should  not  be  in  a  Unitarian  pulpit,  and  I  should 
not  believe  that  you  had  any  business  in  Unitarian  pews. 

My  final  word  is  the  conviction  that  we  ought  to  assert  the 
position  to  which  we  are  called  as  one  to  which  we  are  di- 
vinely sent.  I  believe  that  the  welfare  of  the  world  in  the 
future  depends  on  the  promulgation  and  the  general  accept- 
ance of  the  idea  for  which  Unitarianism  is  standing,  and  is 
coming  more  and  more  to  stand.  There  has  never  been  any 
catastrophe  in  the  past  calling  for  the  kind  of  salvation  still 
offered  by  the  older  churches.  They  have  misread  the  old 
universe.  I  believe  that  we,  for  the  first  time  in  history,  are 
comprehending  what  kind  of  a  universe  this  is,  and  what  has 
been  the  origin,  the  nature,  and  the  method  of  growth  of 
humanity.  We  stand,  then,  for  a  new  revelation  of  God's 
truth,  a  new  gospel  to  mankind.  We  have  no  right  to  stand 
for  anything  less  than  this ;  and,  if  we  stand  for  this,  we 
should  earnestly,  faithfully,  in  most  consecrated  fashion,  as- 
sert this  day  by  day.  We  should  live  for  it,  give  for  it,  work 
for  it,  if  need  be,  die  for  it,  as  the  grandest  souls  of  the 
ages  have  been  willing  to  die. 

If  we  stand  for  anything  less  than  this,  then  this  schism 
which  we  have  created  in  Christendom  is  wrong;  and  we 
ought  to  go  back  to  the  old  churches.  But,  if  we  do  stand 
for  new  life,  light,  leadership  for  mankind,  for  a  new  revela- 
tion of  God,  then,  not  egotistically,  not  with  self-glorification, 
not  for  the  sake  of  building  up  our  denomination,  but,  like 
a  prophet  burdened  with  the  seriousness  of  the  task  imposed 
on  him,  let  us  go  forth  proclaiming  this  new  truth, —  not 
ours,  but  God's, —  stand  for  it,  work  for  it,  live  for  it,  day 
by  day. 


yo  Signs  of  the   Times 

I  do  not  believe  —  and  in  the  light  of  what  I  am  saying 
you  will  not  think  me  illiberal  —  in  working  for  the  support 
of  a  system  which  you  are  convinced  is  wrong.  That  is  not 
the  one  to  help.  I  do  not  believe  that  you  have  a  right  to 
contribute  your  money  to  the  support  of  schemes  of  thought 
and  life  which  you  are  convinced  are  not  fitted  to  help  the 
world.  You  have  little  enough  strength,  little  enough  time, 
little  enough  money,  little  enough  service,  to  offer  for  what 
you  believe  to  be  God's  truth,  that  on  which  depends  the 
welfare  of  the  world.  It  is  not  working  for  yourselves,  for 
your  own  little  body :  it  is  working  for  the  glory  of  God,  it 
is  working  for  the  deliverance  of  the  world. 


FREE  RELIGION  AND  ETHICAL  CULTURE. 


In  the  year  1865,  the  National  Conference  of  Unitarian 
Churches  was  organized  in  the  city  of  New  York.  Because 
it  was  the  occasion  of  the  formation  of  the  Free  Religious 
Association,  I  wish  to  read  to  you  two  or  three  words  from 
the  constitution  which  the  National  Conference  adopted. 
You  find  in  it  the  phrase,  which  is  the  only  important  thing, 
"the  disciples  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ"  and  "the  building 
up  of  the  kingdom  of  his  [that  is,  God's]  Son" ;  that  is,  the 
Unitarian  Conference,  speaking  for  all  the  Unitarians  in  the 
country,  put  themselves  in  the  position  of  being  disciples  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  announced  as  the  great  work 
before  them  "  the  building  up  of  the  kingdom  of  God's  Son." 
The  Free  Religious  men,  those  who  came  to  represent  the 
Free  Religious  Association,  objected  to  this  language  for 
two  reasons.  The  objection  at  first  sight  may  seem  to  you 
slight  and  trivial,  and  you  may  question  whether  there  was 
sufficient  reason  for  the  Free  Religious  Association's  coming 
into  existence ;  but,  whether  we  agree  with  the  earnest  men 
who  were  foremost  in  that  movement  or  not,  we  must  recog- 
nize the  fact  that  they  were  earnest,  that  they  were  devoted, 
that  they  were  high-minded,  and  that  they  meant  to  be  what 
they  charged  us  Unitarians  with  not  being,  logically  consist- 
ent. They  said  this  declaring  ourselves  subject  to  the  lord- 
ship of  Jesus  is  a  limitation  of  perfect  intellectual  liberty. 
They  did  not  object  to  any  one's  coming  to  accept  this  lord- 


7 2  Signs  of  the  Times 

ship  as  the  result  of  the  intellectual  liberty,  but  they  did 
object  to  being  bound  to  that  from  the  outset ;  for  they  said, 
—  and  they  said  it,  mark  you,  in  the  spirit  of  Jesus  himself, — 
We  will  call  no  man,  not  even  Jesus,  "Master  "  in  this  sense  : 
we  will  be  utterly  free.  You  see,  and  this  is  the  point  I 
have  in  mind,  that  they  were  only  logically  carrying  out  the 
principle  of  perfect  intellectual  liberty. 

They  objected  to  it,  however,  on  another  ground.  They 
said  the  attitude  of  the  ordinary  Unitarian  towards  Jesus  is 
simply  a  traditional  attitude,  and  is  inconsistent  with  the 
declaration  that  he  is  only  a  man,  and  savors  at  any  rate  of 
idolatry.  It  is  making  a  man  the  object  of  a  reverence  that 
at  least  borders  on  divine  worship,  putting  him  between  the 
soul  and  the  one  Father,  God  of  all.  You  will  note  that  I 
am  not  now  uttering  my  own  sentiments.  Whether  I  agree 
with  them  or  not  is  entirely  one  side  of  my  purpose.  I  am 
attempting,  as  clearly  and  simply  as  I  may,  to  outline  the 
position  which  the  Free  Religious  Association  then  assumed ; 
for  this  Association  was  the  result  of  the  insistence  on  the 
part  of  Unitarians  on  the  use  of  these  phrases,  which  they 
regarded  as  a  limitation  of  human  thought. 

When  they  organized  themselves,  they  declared  their  pur- 
pose in  the  following  words  :  — 

"  The  object  of  this  association  is  to  encourage  the  scien- 
tific study  of  religion  and  of  ethics,  to  advocate  freedom  in 
religion,  to  increase  fellowship  in  spirit,  and  to  emphasize 
the  supremacy  of  practical  morality  in  all  the  relations  of 
life.  All  persons  sympathizing  with  these  aims  are  cordially 
invited  to  membership." 

The  Free  Religious  Association,  then,  was  organized  as  a 
protest  against  what  these  men  regarded  as  a  halt  on  the 
part  of  Unitarians.  They  said  the  Unitarians  are  not  con- 
sistent with  their  principles.     They  have  not  carried  them  to 


Free  Religion  and  Ethical  Culture  73 

their  logical  outcome.  These  men,  I  believe,  were  actuated 
by  the  noblest  religious  enthusiasm,  by  the  noblest  love  of 
their  fellow-men,  and  by  the  noblest  loyalty  to  truth. 

A  protest,  if  it  succeeds,  dies  even  in  the  hour  of  its 
victory ;  for  in  the  very  act  of  death  there  is  resurrection  to 
eternal  life  of  the  principles  for  which  it  stands,  and  that 
come  to  be  so  universally  recognized  that  there  is  no  longer 
place  or  use  for  the  organization  itself.  It  seems  to  me  that 
this  expresses  in  very  brief  words  substantially  the  outcome 
of  this  Free  Religious  movement.  It  has  been  limited  in  its 
range.  It  has  organized  only  a  few  societies ;  and  to-day 
those  few,  I  think  it  is  safe  to  say,  are  either  dead  or  dying, 
and  the  work  of  the  Free  Religious  Association  is  practically 
at  an  end. 

As  a  recognition  on  the  part  of  Unitarians  of  the  success 
of  this  protest,  I  wish  to  read  just  a  few  words  from  the 
clause  added  to  the  original  constitution  of  the  National 
Conference  :  — 

"While  we  believe  that  the  preamble  and  articles  of  our 
constitution  fairly  represent  the  opinions  of  the  majority  of 
our  churches,  yet  we  wish  distinctly  to  put  on  record  our 
declaration  that  they  are  no  authoritative  test  of  Unitarian- 
ism,  and  are  not  intended  to  exclude  from  our  fellowship  any 
who,  while  differing  from  us  in  belief,  are  in  general  sym- 
pathy with  our  purposes  and  practical  aims." 

I  read  these  last  words  to  show  you  that  practically  the 
great  principles  for  which  the  Free  Religious  Association 
organized  itself  have  been  recognized,  and  the  National 
Conference  itself  has  declared  that  it  means  to  put  no  limit 
to  intellectual  liberty,  and  that  it  does  not  intend  to  exclude 
from  its  fellowship  any  man  who  is  in  general  sympathy  with 
its  purpose  and  practical  aims,  whatever  his  special  personal 
attitude  may  be  towards  any  claims  of  lordship  or  any  dec- 
laration that  calls  Jesus  the  only  Son  of  God. 


74  Signs  of  the  Times 

This  Association,  if  it  did  nothing  more,  has  left  a  heri- 
tage to  free  thought  of  certain  very  notable  names,  a  galaxy 
of  stars  in  our  intellectual  firmament  that  it  is  worth  our 
while,  in  passing,  to  glance  at  for  a  moment  and  name.  For 
years  its  president  was  O.  B.  Frothingham ;  and  among  those 
associated  in  the  work  and  who  frequently  stood  on  its  plat- 
form were  men  like  Ralph  Waldo  Emerson,  John  Weiss, 
David  A.  Wasson,  F.  E.  Abbot,  T.  W.  Higginson,  women 
like  Lucretia  Mott  and  Ednah  D.  Cheney,  with  a  host  of 
others  hardly  less  well  known.  Persons  such  as  these  we 
are  proud  to  honor,  and  proud  that  we  have  grown  enough 
so  that  we  can  work  in  full  fellowship  with  them  to-day, 
however  much  they  might  have  differed  from  us  in  the  past, 
however  much  any  of  us  may  be  disposed  to  differ  from  cer- 
tain personal  opinions  which  any  of  them  may  hold  to-day. 

The  Free  Religious  Association  was  a  protest;  and,  hav- 
ing succeeded  in  this  protest,  it  has  died  into  eternal  life : 
and  there  for  the  morning  we  will  leave  it,  and  turn  to  that 
which,  while  having  no  definite  historical  connection  per- 
haps with  it,  we  may  yet  regard  in  a  certain  way  as  its  child 
and  successor,  the  Ethical  Culture  movement. 

As  I  have  already  hinted,  I  do  not  mean  to  assert  that  the 
president  of  the  Ethical  Culture  Society  would  recognize 
any  historic  connection  between  the  movement  for  which  he 
stands  and  the  Free  Religious  Association ;  but  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  is  definitely  and  distinctly  the  logical  carrying  out 
of  one,  at  least,  of  the  tendencies  which  were  represented 
in  the  older  society.  Many  of  those  connected  with  the 
Free  Religious  Association  were  theistic;  many  of  them 
were  agnostic.  The  entire  basis  of  the  Ethical  Culture 
Society  is  agnosticism  ;  and  so  I  believe  that  it  represents 
the  logical  outcome  of  that  wing  of  the  Free  Religious 
Association. 


Free  Religion  and  Ethical  Culture  75 

I  ask  you  now  to  consider  with  me  for  a  moment  what  this 
stands  for, —  the  excuse  for  its  existence  as  put  forth  by  its 
representatives.  I  am  not  authorized  to  speak  for  the 
Ethical  Culture  Societies  of  America.  It  is  possible  I  may 
use  language  which  they  would  repudiate.  I  shall  try,  how- 
ever, to  be  as  clear,  simple,  and  fair  as  I  can  ;  and,  if  I 
misrepresent,  I  shall  be  the  first  one  to  correct  the  misrepre- 
sentation when  it  has  been  pointed  out  to  me. 

I  am  in  thorough,  hearty  sympathy  with  so  much  in  this 
Ethical  Culture  movement  that  it  is  easier  to  praise  than  it 
is  to  criticise.  It  sprang  out  of  this  fact :  There  are  three 
main  elements  of  religion  as  it  is  incorporated  in  the  great 
historical  religions  and  churches  of  the  world.  Churches  are 
frequently  so  characterized  that  they  lay  special  and  peculiar 
emphasis  on  some  one  department  of  this  rather  than  on 
the  others.  These  three  elements  are  doctrine,  ritual,  and 
conduct.  The  Ethical  Culture  men  made  the  charge,  and 
make  it  perpetually  by  the  fact  that  they  exist,  that  there  has 
been  too  great  an  emphasis  laid  by  the  religions  of  the  world 
upon  doctrine  and  ritual ;  and  they  propose,  for  the  time 
being,  to  leave  these  chiefly  out  of  sight,  and  call  the  world 
back  to  this  matter  of  practical  conduct,  on  which,  they  say, 
rest  the  entire  welfare,  prosperity,  happiness,  and  future  of 
mankind. 

Let  us  consider,  for  a  moment,  how  grave  the  charges  are 
that  can  be  made  by  these  men.  Consider  the  fact  as  to 
the  excessive  emphasis  laid  on  the  matter  of  doctrine, —  how 
important  it  has  been  considered,  how  over-important,  and 
how,  on  account  of  this  importance,  matters  of  conduct  have 
been  neglected;  not  only  neglected,  but  an  emphasis  has 
been  laid  on  doctrine  which  has  led  to  radically  wrong  con- 
duct. Matthew  Arnold  says  that  conduct  is  at  least  three- 
fourths  of  life.     The  Ethical  Culture  men  would  say  that  the 


j6  Signs  of  the  Times 

practical  purposes  of  life  make  up  at  least  seven-eighths,  that 
is,  almost  the  whole.  Doctrine  is  of  importance  only  as  it 
leads  to  conduct.  Ritual  is  of  importance  only  as  it  bears 
on  conduct;  and,  when  men  emphasize  doctrine  and  put  it 
in  the  place  of  chief  importance,  they  are  wronging  the 
world.  When  they  emphasize  ritual  and  put  it  in  the  place 
of  chief  importance,  they  are  wronging  the  world. 

Glance  at  one  or  two  illustrations.  Go  back  and  find  the 
old  warfare,  bitterness,  and  persecution  between  the  Jews, 
and  the  Christians, —  a  persecution  that  has  lasted  to  this  cen- 
tury; and  for  what?  Entirely  from  questions  of  doctrine. 
When,  a  few  years  ago,  the  grand  old  centenarian  saint,  Sir 
Moses  Montefiore,  died,  a  man  illustrious  his  whole  life  long 
for  the  sweetness  and  amiability  of  his  character  and  the 
magnificence  and  breadth  of  his  charities,  the  question  was 
raised  in  hundreds  of  churches  as  to  whether  to-day  he  was 
not  suffering  the  torments  of  hell.  Why  ?  For  any  question 
of  good  character?  Not  at  all.  Simply  on  account  of  the 
differences  of  doctrine  between  the  Jew  and  the  Christian. 

There  has  been  an  age-long  feud  between  the  Greek 
Church  and  the  Catholic  Church.  No  one  doubts  that  there 
are  as  good  men  in  the  Greek  Church  as  in  the  Catholic,  as 
charitable,  kind,  loving,  and  patriotic  and  public-spirited 
men ;  yet  there  is  a  bitterness  between  those  two  churches 
that  puts  a  gulf  between  them  wider  than  between  either  of 
them  and  paganism.  Why  ?  One  cause  is  that  the  Catholic 
Church  holds  that  Jesus  was  made  of  the  same  substance,  or 
was  of  the  same  substance,  as  the  Father ;  while  the  Greek 
theologian  said  he  was  not  of  the  same  substance,  but  only  of 
like  substance.  These  questions  and  others  like  them  split 
the  Greek  Church  and  the  Catholic,  and  created  this  antag- 
onism which  has  lasted  for  centuries. 

And  then  think  of  the  persecutions  of  the  Protestants  on 


Free  Religion  and  Ethical  Culture  JJ 

the  part  of  the  Catholics.  Nobody  has  ever  raised  a  ques- 
tion as  to  whether  these  Protestants  were  good  and  true  men 
in  their  character  and  their  daily  life.  It  was  such  as 
whether  they  believed  in  transubstantiation,  whether  they 
believed  in  this  or  that  doctrine.  And  so  the  world  has 
fought  and  persecuted  and  hated,  and  rivers  of  blood  have 
flowed,  and  cities  have  been  razed  to  the  ground,  whole  pop- 
ulations have  been  made  homeless,  simply  on  account  of 
these  quarrels  over  what  the  Ethical  Culture  man  is  ready 
to  say  nobody  knows  anything  about  or  is  ever  likely  to 
know.  And  this  they  offer  as  one  reason  for  saying,  We  will 
cease  utterly  to  have  to  do  with  these  questions ;  we  will  turn 
to  the  practical  matters  of  life. 

Then  take  the  matter  of  ritual.  Curiously  enough,  men 
and  women  have  been  trained  in  such  a  way  that  they  will 
lay  more  stress  on  some  little  form  of  service  than  they  do 
even  on  a  doctrine  or  the  most  serious  questions  of  character 
and  conduct.  If  I  had  time  to  trace  the  origin  of  these 
ideas,  you  would  find  how  natural  they  were,  how  inevitable 
they  were,  in  certain  stages  of  human  culture.  But  the  Eth- 
ical Culture  men  believe  that  the  time  has  come  when  sensi- 
ble people,  at  any  rate,  ought  to  know  better,  and  ought  to 
turn  to  something  of  more  importance  than  these  questions. 

Let  me  give  you  an  illustration  of  what  I  mean.  Go  back 
to  ancient  Rome,  before  Christianity  existed,  and  you  find 
that,  under  the  guidance  of  the  priesthood,  the  extremest 
emphasis  was  laid  on  such  questions  as  this :  as  to  just  where 
the  sacrifices  to  the  gods  should  be  rendered  ;  as  to  precisely 
the  nature,  the  character,  the  physical  peculiarities  of  the 
victim;  as  to  what  kind  of  wood  should  be  burned  in  making 
the  fire ;  as  to  what  kind  of  knife  should  be  used  in  slaying 
the  victim ;  as  to  just  how  the  priest  should  stand  in  the  per- 
formance of  the  ritual ;  as  to  whether  he  should  face  to  one 


y8  Signs  of  the   Times 

point  of  the  compass  or  the  other.  At  one  place  in  the 
ritual  the  priest  must  stand  on  one  foot :  which  must  it 
be  ?  He  must  go  through  certain  motions  and  gestures.  He 
must  intone  the  words  that  he  pronounced  in  his  religious 
service  in  a  particular  way.  All  these  matters  in  the  ritual 
were  fixed  hard  and  fast ;  and  the  people  came  to  believe 
that  the  gods  they  worshipped  would  not  hear  their  prayers, 
would  not  grant  the  favors  they  desired,  would  not  ward  off 
the  calamities  they  feared,  if  there  was  a  mistake,  even  an 
unconscious  mistake,  in  any  of  these  little  petty  peculiarities 
of  the  ritual,  so  that  it  became  of  much  more  consequence 
than  the  character  of  the  people.  A  priest  might  be  utterly 
unworthy  in  his  character  and  yet  prevail  with  the  gods,  if  he 
were  exact  in  the  ritual.  But  let  him  be  the  veriest  saint 
that  ever  lived,  if  he  made  a  mistake  in  the  pronunciation  of 
a  word,  in  a  gesture,  his  whole  service  went  for  nothing. 
We  have  not  outgrown  such  ideas  yet,  even  in  the  Christian 
Church.  You  are  familiar  with  the  fact  that  the  city  of 
London,  and  since  that  time  the  city  of  New  York,  in  church 
quarters,  have  been  convulsed  by  controversies  that  lasted 
for  years  over  the  question  as  to  the  robe  that  the  priest 
should  wear, —  whether  it  should  be  of  one  color,  or  one 
pattern,  or  another.  You  know  that  the  churches  have  quar- 
relled over  the  question  whether  the  priest  in  saying  certain 
prayers  should  face  the  east,  take  the  eastward  position,  as 
it  is  called,  or  whether  it  were  permissible  to  face  in  some 
other  direction, —  an  old  relic  of  sun-worship  surviving  and 
mighty  still  in  Christianity.  And  you  know  also  that  there 
are  persons  —  I  fear  they  are  not  entirely  wanting  even  in 
the  liberal  branch  of  the  Christian  Church  —  who  place 
more  emphasis  on  a  question  of  ritual  —  of  attendance  at 
church,  of  reading  the  Bible,  as  to  just  how  the  Sabbath 
shall  be  observed  —  than  they  do  on  some  very  important 


Free  Religion  and  Ethical  Culture  79 

questions  of  character  and  conduct.  I  think  I  know  certain 
liberals  in  good  standing  who  would  be  troubled  over  what 
they  would  regard  as  an  infringement  of  Sunday ;  and  yet 
they  are  not  troubled  over  the  fact  that  they  pick  their 
neighbor's  character  to  pieces  in  a  very  slanderous  way,  are 
guilty  of  unkindness,  of  uncharitableness,  of  hard  feelings, 
of  hard  speaking,  guilty  of  a  hundred  things  that  interfere 
with  the  peace,  the  beauty,  the  growth  of  society.  But,  as 
Jesus  said  ages  ago,  they  are  very  particular  about  the  tithing 
of  mint  and  anise  and  cumin.  Jesus  did  not  say  that  these 
were  of  no  importance,  but  he  said  that  other  things  were  of 
a  good  deal  more  importance.  And  so  the  Ethical  Culture 
men  have  said,  Whatever  others  do,  we  propose  to  leave  the 
other  world  out  of  account  for  the  present.  They  take  the 
position  of  Thoreau  when  he  was  dying.  Parker  Pillsbury 
sat  by  his  bedside,  and  said,  "  Henry,  as  you  get  close  to  the 
border,  do  you  see  or  hear  anything  from  the  other  side  ? " 
And  Thoreau  replied,  "  One  world  at  a  time,  Parker."  This 
is  the  position  of  the  Ethical  Culture  men. 

But  let  me  interject  a  sentence  here  in  which  I  express  my 
own  opinions.  Whether  it  is  wise  or  not, —  and  I  do  not  be- 
lieve it  is  wise, —  in  any  case  this  strange,  contradictory 
human  nature  of  ours  is  such  that  it  never  will  consent  to 
take  one  world  at  a  time.  And,  to  my  mind,  this  is  the 
grandest  thing  about  man,  that  he  feels  within  himself  throb- 
bing, pulsing,  however  blindly,  something  that  he  is  con- 
vinced transcends  this  world  ;  and  you  will  never  get  him 
to  take  one  world  at  a  time. 

But  this  was  the  position  of  the  Ethical  Culture  men. 
They  said,  We  do  not  think  it  is  worth  while  to  fight  over 
the  question  whether  the  bread  on  the  communion  table  is 
turned  into  the  body  of  our  Lord  or  the  wine  into  his  blood, 
while  there  are  hundreds  and  thousands  of  people  who  have 


8o  Signs  of  the  Times 

bread  of  no  description  to  eat.  We  do  not  think  it  is  worth 
while  to  quarrel  over  the  robes  of  priests,  while  thousands  of 
people  are  suffering  for  the  want  of  the  ordinary  clothing  of 
life.  And  they  carried  out  this  idea,  and  said,  We  propose 
to  devote  ourselves  to  the  work  of  saving  this  world,  to  the 
work  of  bringing  it  to  a  time  when  wars  shall  cease,  when 
slavery  shall  be  no  more.  We  propose  to  reform  business, 
to  go  into  hospitals,  heal  the  wounds,  bind  up  the  sores  of 
those  who  need  such  care.  We  propose,  if  we  can,  to  stay 
the  flow  of  human  tears,  to  heal  the  broken-hearted,  to  set  at 
liberty  those  that  are  bound.  We  propose  to  devote  our- 
selves to  this  world,  to  making  it  better,  to  lessening  its 
burden,  and  to  helping  people  live  right  here.  And  they 
said,  We  say  nothing  about  any  God.  We  do  not  propose 
to  talk  about  him.  If  there  be  none,  we  will  try  to  do  the 
work  that  he  would  do  if  he  existed.  We  do  not  propose  to 
trouble  about  any  future  life.  If  there  be  one,  we  shall  be 
ready  for  it  if  we  try  to  live  properly  here.  If  there  be  none, 
then  we  will  try  to  make  this  world,  while  we  go  through  it, 
as  comfortable  as  we  can. 

This  is  the  position,  then,  as  I  understand  it,  and  the  work 
which  these  men  propose  to  themselves. 

Now  I  wish  to  offer,  hardly  in  the  way  of  criticism, —  and 
yet  it  is  criticism  when  you  differ  from  a  man  and  tell  the 
reason  why, —  two  suggestions  touching  the  Ethical  Cult- 
ure movement  which  shall  constitute  an  explanation  as  to 
why  I  cannot  join  with  them. 

I  do  not  believe  that  they  have  taken  a  step  towards 
breadth,  towards  depth,  towards  height.  I  regard  the  Ethi- 
cal Culture  movement,  as  compared  with  the  position  which 
I  try  to  occupy  to-day,  as  a  narrow,  contracted  position,  as 
one  bounded  and  hampered.  I  believe  that  I  have  basis, 
ground  for  all  that  is  noble  and  grand  in  the  Ethical  Culture 
movement  and  something  more. 


Free  Religion  and  Ethical  Culture  81 

In  the  first  place,  I  do  not  think  that  Ethical  Culture,  if 
you  confine  yourself  simply  to  that,  has  an  adequate  expla- 
nation for  its  existence  in  an  agnostic  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse ;  that  is,  in  the  theory  of  the  universe  which  leaves  out 
God  as  the  source,  the  author,  the  inspiration  of  the  moral 
life.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  adequate  explanation  for 
this  fine  and  high  enthusiasm  which  these  men  possess  and 
manifest. 

Let  me  try  to  make  myself  clear,  if  I  can.  There  is  no 
difficulty,  as  we  study  human  history,  in  tracing  the  origin 
and  growth  of  the  world's  ideas  of  right  and  wrong.  When 
two  people  stood  face  to  face  with  each  other,  and  recog- 
nized by  the  power  of  intelligent  sympathy  that  each  had 
equal  rights,  that  each  was  capable  of  suffering,  each  was 
capable  of  enjoying,  that  each  desired  to  possess  certain 
things,  then  morality  became  recognized  on  the  part  of  both 
of  them.  As  society  has  grown  in  complexity,  breadth, 
depth,  height,  as  men  have  touched  each  other  at  more 
points,  they  have  recognized  more  and  more  the  delicacy  of 
these  questions  of  ethics,  the  questions  of  right  and  wrong. 

If,  for  example,  people  are  to  live  together  and  own  prop- 
erty, theft,  of  course,  cannot  be  allowed.  If  they  are  to  live 
together  and  transact  business,  indiscriminate  and  universal 
lying  cannot  be  allowed.  There  must  be  a  basis  of  trust  in 
society ;  and  it  is  no  very  difficult  feat  of  logic  for  a  man  to 
say,  Since  I  live  and  enjoy  life  and  would  not  like  to  be  put 
to  death,  therefore  I  have  no  right  to  put  another  to  death 
who  also  likes  to  live.  So  all  these  questions  of  practical 
ethics  are  plain  and  easy,  no  matter  what  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse we  have,  whether  there  is  any  God  or  not,  whether 
there  is  any  future  life  or  not.  These  questions  are  plain 
enough. 

But  here  is  the  difficulty,  and  one  that  deeply  concerns 


82  Signs  of  the  Times 

this  marvellous  human  nature  of  ours.  The  origin  of  any 
idea  of  right  or  wrong,  the  conception  of  myself  as  an  imper- 
fect being,  the  desire  to  grow  and  expand,  to  become  some- 
thing more  and  better, —  all  this  has  sprung  from  the  fact 
that  man  is  this  curious  being,  the  only  one  on  earth,  so  far 
as  we  know,  who  dreams,  who  has  an  ideal  of  something 
finer,  something  more  beautiful,  something  better  than  ever 
was.  Where  did  he  get  it  ?  Where  did  he  get  this  dream  ? 
Where  did  he  get  this  ideal  ?  Unless  there  be  a  power,  a 
life,  adequate  to  the  dream,  then  it  is  something  utterly  un- 
explainable ;  and  if  you  say  there  is  no  God,  and  the  dream 
came  somehow  out  of  matter,  earth,  soil,  why  then  you  must 
change  your  definition  of  soil.  You  must  have  a  kind  of 
earth  that  thinks,  feels,  recognizes  the  principle  of  justice, 
that  can  pity,  that  cares  for  peace  on  earth,  that  knows 
what  it  is  to  be  tender  and  kind  and  loving,  and  that  can 
blossom  into  a  Jesus.  And,  when  you  get  that,  I  defy  any- 
body to  tell  me  the  difference  between  that  and  what  I  mean 
when  I  say  spirit  or  God.  If,  then,  man  is  a  moral  being, 
if  he  dreams  of  something  that  transcends  him  forever  and 
makes  his  life  an  eternal  pursuit,  that  demands  something 
that  the  Ethical  Culturist  philosophy  says  must  be  left  out 
of  account  because  we  do  not  know  anything  about  it,  I 
differ  from  the  Ethical  Culture  men  right  there. 

I  differ  radically  in  another  way.  I  do  not  believe  that 
the  Ethical  Culturist  can  give  me  any  adequate  reason,  any 
adequate  motive,  for  the  kind  of  life  he  wants  me  to  live. 
If  there  is  no  future,  if,  when  we  lie  down  in  the  dust,  that 
is  the  end  of  us,  and  if,  after  a  certain  length  of  time,  this 
whole  world  and  all  that  we  see  are  to  come  to  an  end,  and 
there  is  to  be  nothing  but  what  we  call  dead  matter  again, 
then  on  that  theory  of  the  universe  there  is  no  adequate 
motive  for  the  kind  of  moral  life  that   the   finest  of  these 


Free  Religion  and  Ethical  Culture  83 

Ethical  Culture  men  both  illustrate  and  demand.  When  I 
hear  Felix  Adler,  for  example,  at  his  best,  I  think  I  am 
listening  to  one  of  the  old  Hebrew  prophets, —  a  man  in- 
spired, a  man  on  fire  with,  the  noblest  enthusiasm,  and  a 
man  who,  by  the  way,  at  every  third  sentence,  as  it  seems  to 
me,  implies  what  I  believe  in  of  God  and  the  future,  and 
denies  his  own  premises.  So  much  finer  must  I  regard  his 
spiritual  nature  than  the  logic  of  his  position. 

It  is  true,  if  the  world  is  only  going  to  live  for  one  day, 
and  then  we  are  to  sink  into  nothingness  —  true  even  then 
that  it  would  be  better  for  people  not  to  steal,  not  to  be 
unkind,  not  to  be  cruel,  not  to  cut  each  other's  throats,  to 
obey  the  practical  principles  of  morality ;  but,  if  there  is  no 
grand  future,  then  I  say  a  practical,  adequate  motive  for 
doing  these  things  seems  to  me  to  be  wanting.  Morality 
would  last,  but  it  would  entirely  change  its  nature. 

Take  an  illustration.  Suppose  I  knew  that  I  am  to  live 
just  one  year  from  to-day,  and  then  am  to  die.  I  should 
lay  out  my  life  on  a  scale  adapted  to  that  brief  period.  If, 
on  the  other  hand,  I  could  be  sure  that  I  am  going  to  live 
twenty-five  years  more,  do  you  not  see  how  natural  it  would 
be  for  me  to  lay  out  my  life  on  another  scale?  It  would 
change  the  whole  purpose,  scope,  and  emphasis  of  my  life. 
So  I  believe,  if  this  world  is  the  end,  it  would  still  be  better, 
if  you  can  get  people  to  see  it,  for  them  to  live  true,  noble, 
moral,  and  helpful  lives ;  but  the  grandeur  of  the  motive  is 
taken  away.  I  think  the  finest  thought  from  the  agnostic 
point  of  view  in  our  literature  is  that  wonderfully  sweet  and 
beautiful  "  Choir  Invisible  "  :  — 

"  O  may  I  join  the  choir  invisible 
Of  those  immortal  dead  who  live  again 
In  minds  made  better  by  their  presence :  live 
In  pulses  stirred  to  generosity, 


84  Signs  of  the  Times 

In  deeds  of  daring  rectitude,  in  scorn 

For  miserable  aims  that  end  with  self, 

In  thoughts  sublime  that  pierce  the  night  like  stars, 

And  with  their  mild  persistence  urge  man's  search 

To  vaster  issues. 

"  So  to  live  is  heaven : 
To  make  undying  music  in  the  world, 
Breathing  as  beauteous  order  that  controls 
With  growing  sway  the  growing  life  of  man. 

"  This  is  life  to  come, 
Which  martyred  men  have  made  more  glorious 
For  us  who  strive  to  follow.     May  I  reach 
That  purest  heaven,  be  to  other  souls 
The  cup  of  strength  in  some  great  agony, 
Enkindle  generous  ardor,  feed  pure  love, 
Beget  the  smiles  that  have  no  cruelty, — 
Be  the  sweet  presence  of  a  good  diffused, 
And  in  diffusion  ever  more  intense. 
So  shall  I  join  the  choir  invisible, 
Whose  music  is  the  gladness  of  the  world." 

This  is  the  song  of  the  agnostic,  the  song  of  the  Ethical 
Culturist,  as  she  would  undoubtedly  have  called  herself  had 
she  been  here.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  here  is  the  flame  of 
a  religious  fire  kindled  on  the  altar  of  faith  in  a  future  life; 
for  all  the  way  through  it  carries  the  implication  that  some- 
how she  is  to  be  there,  rejoicing  in  all  this  glory  that  she  has 
helped  to  create.  Yet,  on  her  theory,  she  is  to  be  simply 
a  memory  then,  and  know  nothing  of  all  this  grand  thing 
that  came  to  be. 

To  face  the  matter  frankly  and  squarely,  I  think  we  have 
a  right  to  ask  the  Ethical  Culture  men  to  tell  us  why.  Why 
should  I  do  ?  If  there  is  no  God,  if  there  is  no  intelligence, 
no  goodness,  no  life  in  the  universe,  then  my  happiness  is 
just  as  important  as  the  happiness  of  a  man  who  perhaps  will 
live  five  hundred  years  from  now.     When  he  comes,  if  he 


Free  Religion  and  Ethical  Culture  85 

dares  to  be  happy,  it  will  be  just  as  wrong  as  it  is  for  me  to 
be  happy  to-day.  Why,  then,  should  I  go  without?  Why 
should  I  suffer,  why  should  I  sacrifice,  why  should  1  crucify 
myself  to  make  him  have  a  pleasant  time  when  he  is  born, 
when  the  end  after  all  is  that  both  of  us  will  cease  to  be, 
and  there  is  nobody  to  know  and  nobody  to  care  ?  It  seems 
to  me  that  the  mainspring  and  motive  for  sacrifice  are  taken 
away.  Why  should  a  man  be  a  martyr,  extinguish  life  itself? 
Wrhy,  Ethical  Culture  exists  simply  to  make  life  as  comfort- 
able and  pleasant  as  possible.  Martyrdom  is  its  reductio  ad 
absurdum.  It  is  a  contradiction  of  the  very  purpose  for 
which  it  exists.  Why  should  Jesus  go  to  the  cross,  if  that  is 
the  end  of  Jesus,  simply  that  somebody  else  might  not  suffer 
the  pang  that  was  inflicted  upon  him  ?  Why  should  the  men 
in  the  East  End  of  London  to-day  be  quiet,  orderly,  well- 
behaved,  and  let  the  Duke  of  Westminster,  who  owns  almost 
acres  of  the  city  of  London,  ride  in  his  carriages  and  eat  his 
dinners  in  perfect  peace,  when  he  has  never  lifted  a  finger  or 
done  one  stroke  of  work  to  earn  that  which  he  enjoys  and 
for  the  lack  of  which  they  starve  ?  If  there  is  nothing  be- 
yond, if  there  is  no  hope  to  buoy  them  up,  if  there  is  no 
grand  purpose  in  bearing  up,  why  not  nihilism  and  rebellion 
for  the  sake  of  getting  whatever  of  the  world's  enjoyment 
they  can  before  we  all  go  into  the  dust  together,  and  the 
tragical  farce  is  done  ? 

The  Ethical  Culture  men  say  that  doctrine  is  of  impor- 
tance only  as  it  leads  to  conduct,  that  ritual  is  of  importance 
only  as  it  leads  to  conduct.  I  say  there  is  something  more 
important  than  doctrine  not  only,  something  more  important 
than  ritual  not  only ;  there  is  something  more  important 
than  conduct  even.  The  doctrine  and  the  ritual  and  the 
conduct  are  means  to  an  end,  exist  for  something  that  tran- 
scends  them  all.     What   is  that   something  ?      Life.      The 


Signs  of  the  Times 
greatest  men  of  the  world  have  been  athirst  for  the  infinite 

srtL^v7  •  ufe"  Hfted   UP   h?  this  ««q«able  in- 

st.nct,  this  insatiable  thirst  for  the  infinite  life.  And  this 
thirst  must  be  satisfied.  Yon  must  have  a  theory  of  the 
universe  that  will  explain  it,  or  you  have  no  true  theory;  and 
it  can  be  explained  only  when  we  suppose  that  the  infinite 
hfe of  which  we  are  children,  in  the  silence  of  the  soul  is 
calling  to  us  and  saying,  «  Be  ye  perfect  even  as  your  Father 
in  heaven  is  perfect."  This  theory,  and  this  alone,  I  believe 
runs  a  line  of  light  and  rationality  through  the  long  struggle 
of  the  world.  I  believe  that  the  one  thing  for  which  e£y 
soul  exists  is  to  eternally  thirst  for  and  find  God. 


"  Rivers  to  the  ocean  run, 

Nor  stay  in  all  their  course; 
Fire  ascending  seeks  the  sun,— 

Both  speed  them  to  their  source. 
So  a  soul  that's  born  of  God 

Pants  to  view  his  glorious  face, 
Upward  tends  to  his  abode, 
To  rest  in  his  embrace." 


SCIENTIFIC  MATERIALISM. 


It  does  not  seem  to  me  at  all  strange  that  there  should 
exist,  as  one  of  the  signs  of  the  times,  this  fact  of  scientific 
materialism.  In  the  break-up  of  the  old  faith,  men  will  natu- 
rally reach  out  in  this  direction  and  that,  trying  to  find  some 
consistent  theory  of  things.  For  all  people  who  think  at  all 
must  try  to  think  things  through  far  enough,  at  any  rate,  to 
discover  a  place  of  mental  rest.  There  are  thousands  in 
the  modern  world  who  are  half  inclined  to  a  materialistic 
theory  of  things,  but  who  have  not  thought  it  through  to  see 
just  what  it  means,  to  find  out  whether  "they  can  explain 
the  more  important  facts  of  life  on  that  theory.  They  are 
confused  and  troubled  as  they  try  to  think  and  believe  in 
God.  The  world  is  not  governed  as  they  would  suppose  it 
would  be  by  an  all-powerful,  all-wise,  and  all-loving  being. 
They  begin  to  wonder  whether  there  is  any  other  way  of  ex- 
plaining it. 

Livingstone  somewhere  tells  of  a  conversation  that  he  had 
with  an  old  Bechuana  chief  in  Africa,  a  man  who  must  have 
been  much  superior  to  the  ordinary  members  of  his  tribe. 
He  says  that  the  old  chief  said  to  him :  Sometimes  I  leave 
my  kraal  and  go  out  and  sit  down  on  a  stone,  and  think  and 
wonder.  I  look  up  to  the  sky,  I  see  the  clouds  floating  over- 
head, and  try  to  make  out  what  they  are,  where  they  came 
from,  where  they  are  going,  who  made  them.  And  at  night 
under  the  stars  I  wonder  what  all  this  means :  Who  am  I, 
what  am  I,  where  did  I  come  from,  what  is  my  nature,  where 


88  Signs  of  the  Times 

am  I  going,  what  does  all  this  scene  of  the  world  and  of 
mankind  mean  ?  Others  besides  the  Bechuana  chief  have 
asked  this  question,  and  others  besides  him  have  been  puz- 
zled for  an  answer.  We  are  far  enough  advanced  in  our 
thought  to-day  to  see  that  the  answer  must  be  in  one  direc- 
tion or  the  other :  it  must  be  God,  or  it  must  be  scientific 
materialism, —  one  or  the  other,  which  ? 

The  progress  of  human  thought  has  been  from  the  first 
towards  unity.  You  know  that  it  is  a  part  of  the  formula  of 
evolution  to  state  the  fact  that  all  growth  is  from  the  homo- 
geneous to  the  heterogeneous,  from  the  simple  to  the  com- 
plex. This  is  illustrated  well  enough  in  the  case  of  the 
growth  of  the  oak.  Here  is  an  acorn,  perfectly  simple,  ap- 
parently of  similar  substance  all  through.  You  plant  it. 
There  comes  up  a  little  sprout  first  from  the  earth,  one  stem. 
This  stem  divides  and  branches  this  way  and  that  until  there 
are  a  thousand  twigs  and  leaves  :  the  growth  is  from  the 
simple  towards  the  complex. 

As  we  try  to  explain  the  meaning  of  life,  we  reverse  that 
process.  We  begin  with  the  multiplicity  of  things,  and  we 
think  towards  unity.  We  try  to  find  some  simple  force, 
power,  cause,  out  of  which  all  these  things  that  we  see  may 
have  been  developed ;  and  the  question  is  whether  this  one 
substance,  if  we  can  find  it,  is  spirit  or  matter,  God  or  the 
world  without  God. 

I  wish  to  illustrate  how,  in  a  few  departments,  this  process 
of  thought  has  been  carried  on.  The  companions  of  the  old 
Bechuana  chief,  barbaric  men  in  all  ages,  have  explained 
the  multiplicity  of  things  by  the  multiplicity  of  causes  and 
powers.  There  have  been  as  many  gods  in  their  imagina- 
tions as  there  have  been  facts  and  forces  in  the  world  around 
them.  Thousands  of  things,  thousands  of  deities  as  the 
causes  of  those  things.     But  the  intelligent  part  of  the  world 


Scientific  Materialism  89 

has  progressed  far  enough  to  see  one  God,  one  force,  one 
element,  and  to  look  for  one  far-off  event,  whether  divine  or 
not,  and  divine  or  not  according  to  the  theory  you  hold. 

The  same  process  of  seeking  for  unity  has  gone  on  in 
other  departments  of  thought.  There  is  a  multiplicity  of 
nations ;  but  we  know  that  these  nations,  many  of  them, 
have  sprung  from  some  common  source.  So  we  trace  back 
towards  the  twilight  of  the  world ;  and  we  see  fewer  and 
fewer,  until  the  conviction  is  forced  upon  us  that,  if  God  has 
not  made  of  one  blood  all  nations  who  dwell  on  the  face 
of  the  earth,  at  any  rate  they  have  been  developed  from  one 
blood,  that  all  peoples  are  one,  have  one  essential  nature. 
So  in  regard  to  a  thousand  of  the  great  facts  of  the  world. 
The  tendency  everywhere  is  towards  unity,  towards  finding 
some  one  common  substance  underlying  the  diversity  of 
form,  towards  finding  some  one  force  as  the  explanation  of 
the  multiplicity  of  forces.  We  find  this  same  process  going 
on  in  chemistry.  There  used  to  be  supposed  to  be  no  end 
of  elements.  Chemical  investigation  has  reduced  them  to- 
fewer  and  fewer.  It  has  been  found  out  that  the  diversity 
of  form,  of  taste,  of  color,  of  force  in  every  direction,  while 
it  exists,  does  not  mean  necessarily  so  wide  a  diversity  of 
substance,  but  that  these  various  forms  are  the  result  only 
of  the  various  combinations  of  a  few  simple  elements.  We 
cannot  understand  how  it  is,  but  we  know  the  fact.  We 
know  that  the  combination  of  precisely  the  same  elements  in 
some  mysterious  way  produces  the  most  marked  diversity  of 
result.  We  know  that  a  bit  of  coal  and  a  diamond  are  com- 
posed of  precisely  the  same  elements.  It  must  be  some 
curious  variety  of  arrangement  of  the  particles.  We  do  not 
know  what  it  is  that  produces  the  difference,  but  they  are 
the  same  at  bottom.  So  we  know  it  is  a  chemical  fact 
that  there  are  certain  substances  that  are  healthful  and  some 


90  Signs  of  the  Times 

that  are  deadly  poison,  but  yet  they  contain  the  same  chemi- 
cal elements.  How  it  is  that  they  produce  such  diverse  re- 
sults we  have  not  as  yet  been  able  to  discover.  One  of  the 
most  magnificent  discoveries  of  the  scientific  world  tends  in 
this  direction.  We  talk  about  light,  heat,  magnetism,  elec- 
tricity, and  they  seem  as  different  as  different  can  be.  Yet 
we  have  discovered  what  is  called  the  law  of  the  transfor- 
mation of  energy.  We  know  that  all  these  different  forces 
are  one.  They  are  nothing  else  but  different  modes  of  mo- 
tion. So  the  tendency,  as  I  said,  in  all  directions  of  inves- 
tigation is  towards  unity.  When  we  consider  the  fact  that 
the  physical  scientist  has  achieved  so  much,  has  attained 
such  wonderful  results  in  his  different  departments  of 
thought,  we  must  not  wonder  if  he  becomes  a  little  proud, 
apparently  arrogant,  if  he  fancies  that  he  holds  in  his  hand 
the  key  of  the  explanation  of  everything.  He  has  unlocked 
so  many  doors  that  he  sees  no  reason  why  he  should  con- 
sider that  there  is  any  door  which  he  cannot  unlock,  until  it 
be  proved  to  the  contrary. 

The  old  Greeks  speculated  as  to  how  all  the  universe,  as 
we  see  it,  might  have  been  produced  as  the  result  of  the 
movements  of  little  atoms.  Some  of  the  Roman  philoso- 
phers speculated  in  the  same  direction ;  but,  when  Christian- 
ity came,  it  for  a  time  absorbed  into  itself  all  the  scientific 
and  philosophic  minds  of  the  civilized  world,  and  turned 
them  aside  from  these  paths  of  physical  investigation.  But, 
with  the  growth  of  scepticism  in  these  recent  centuries, — 
scepticism  concerning  the  finality  of  what  has  been  called 
divine  truth, —  scientific  men  have  taken  up  this  old  specula- 
tion once  more,  and  are  beginning  to  discuss  the  question 
whether  the  universe,  including  men,  all  we  are  and  all  we 
may  be,  is  not  explicable  in  the  light  of  a  purely  physical 
theory  of  things, 


Scientific  Materialism  91 

The  scientist  deals  with  matter  and  force.  He  is  ready  to 
say,  Give  me  matter  and  force  and  unlimited  time,  and  it  is 
conceivable  how  out  of  this  may  have  come  all  we  know,  all  we 
see,  all  we  hope  for.  Tyndall  within  recent  years  has  raised 
a  discussion  in  both  Europe  and  America  by  declaring  it  as 
his  opinion  that  matter  contained  within  itself  "the  promise 
and  potency  of  every  form  of  life."  Right  there,  then,  is  the 
question,  Does  matter  contain  the  promise  and  the  potency 
of  every  form  of  life  ?  Has  the  clod  beneath  our  feet  within 
its  mysterious  depth  the  fountain  and  source  of  the  soul,  our 
dream  of  God  and  immortality  ?  This  is  the  question.  Only 
if  you  come  to  the  conclusion  that  scientific  materialism  can 
explain  these  things,  then  you  must  remember, —  though  1 
would  not  have  that  prejudice  you  against  a  careful  search 
as  to  just  what  is  true, —  you  must  remember  that  it  pre- 
cludes any  belief  in  God,  any  belief  in  immortality.  For,  if 
life  be  the  result  of  organization,  then,  when  organization 
ceases  to  exist,  of  course  life  ceases  to  exist  with  it.  Gau- 
tama believed  this  so  far  as  the  individual  was  concerned, 
and  compared  himself  to  a  chariot.  A  chariot  is  of  such  a 
form  and  color  and  such  construction.  It  moves  under  the 
impulse  of  the  appropriate  power.  It  is  what  it  is  by  virtue 
of  the  relation  of  its  parts  to  each  other.  Take  it  to  pieces, 
and  there  is  no  chariot  any  longer.  So  he  believed  that, 
when  death,  when  the  force  of  disintegration,  took  man  to 
pieces,  that  man  as  an  individual  ceased  to  exist. 

If  this  theory  then  be  true,  we  are  only  the  products  of 
this  mysterious  material  force  round  us,  just  as  are  flowers 
and  plants.  The  beauty  and  the  promise  exist  for  a  little 
while.  Then  frost  nips  them,  and  they  go  back  to  dust; 
and  that  is  the  end  of  the  individual  flower.  Other  flowers 
will  bloom  next  year ;  but  that  flower  never  appeared  before 
in  all  the  ages,  and  never  will  appear  again  to  the  end  of  time. 


92  Signs  of  the  Times 

I  speak  of  this  that  you  may  understand  the  question  at 
issue,  because,  as  I  said,  I  think  there  are  hundreds  and 
thousands  of  people  who  speculate  carelessly  and  crudely  in 
this  direction  or  that  without  having  thought  the  thing  through 
to  see  clearly  what  the  issue  involved  must  be. 

A  man  who  starts  with  this  theory  of  scientific  materialism 
assumes  generally  that  he  knows  matter  and  knows  force. 
People  very  commonly  delude  themselves  with  this  idea. 
They  know  what  a  brick  is.  They  know  what  a  bowlder  is. 
They  have  seen  a  brick.  They  have  handled  it,  and  know 
how  solid,  how  hard,  how  real  it  is ;  but  they  say,  Nobody 
ever  saw  a  soul,  nobody  ever  saw  thought,  nobody  ever  han- 
dled a  feeling.  These  they  regard  as  evanescent,  elusive, 
shadowy,  flitting,  coming  and  going,  and  so,  unreal.  But 
they  say,  I  know  matter.  I  know  what  that  is.  That  is 
something  I  come  in  contact  with  every  day. 

Here  I  wish  to  call  you  to  consciousness  of  the  fact  that 
just  precisely  the  reverse  of  this  is  true.  The  only  things 
that  any  man  knows,  ever  did  know,  ever  can  know,  are  the 
facts  of  consciousness.  I  know  I  think,  I  know  I  feel,  I 
know  I  hope,  I  know  I  fear,  I  know  I  love.  But  what  do  I 
know  about  this  desk  ?  The  existence  of  the  desk  is  merely 
a  matter  of  inference.  I  reach  out  my  hand,  and  touch  what 
I  call  this  desk  ;  and  I  feel  something  that  seems  to  me  hard. 
I  feel  a  force  that  resists  my  pressure ;  but  what  is  it  ?  This 
feeling  of  resistance  is  only  a  fact  of  my  consciousness.  I 
look  at  it,  and  I  see  what  I  call  shape  and  color;  but  what 
are  shape  and  color  ?  Facts  again  of  consciousness.  Sup- 
pose I  attempt  to  lift  it.  I  say  it  is  heavy.  What  do  I 
mean  by  heavy  ?  I  mean  and  can  only  mean  another  fact  of 
consciousness.  Something  resists  the  pull  of  my  muscles; 
and  the  pull  of  my  muscles  is  simply  an  expression  of  my 
will.     All  we  know  directly  of  any  force  in  this  universe  is 


Scientific  Materialism  93 

the  force  of  the  will.  The  source  then  and  the  root  of  this 
wondrous  show  of  things, — these  are  only  inferences  from 
facts  of  consciousness;  so  that  what  we  really  know  is  spirit, 
what  we  really  know  is  mind,  what  we  really  know  is  thought, 
is  consciousness.  Suppose  you  take  the  bowlder  that  you 
think  you  know  so  much  about.  Apply  a  sufficient  amount 
of  heat  to  it,  and  you  can  make  it  molten ;  more  heat  still, 
and  it  evaporates  as  steam ;  more  still,  and  it  has  disap- 
peared in  the  air,  is  absolutely  lost  to  the  cognizance  of 
every  one  of  our  senses.  Where  is  it  gone?  Pursue  an 
atom.  Scientific  men  themselves  confess  that  they  do  not 
know  what  an  atom  is ;  they  have  never  seen  one.  They  are 
too  small  to  be  seen  or  touched  by  the  most  delicate  instru- 
ment of  scientific  investigation.  What  is  an  atom  ?  Nobody 
knows.  Pursue  the  atom,  and  all  you  can  find  is  what  Fara- 
day, one  of  the  most  famous  chemists  of  the  world,  called  a 
point  of  force.  What  a  point  of  force  is  even  Faraday  did 
not  know.  So  this  matter  that  seems  so  solid,  so  real,  so 
simple,  fades  off  into  the  infinite  mystery ;  and  all  you  know 
again  are  the  facts  of  consciousness. 

Suppose  for  a  few  moments  we  consider  this  matter  as 
something  very  real.  Let  us  treat  it  in  the  ordinary  com- 
mon-sense way.  Let  us  take  matter  made  up  of  atoms  aggre- 
gated into  molecules,  and  so  into  larger  aggregations  until 
they  are  piled  into  mountains  and  massed  into  stars  and 
solar  systems.  If  all  that  exists  is  merely  the  result  of  cer- 
tain modifications  of  these  atoms  of  matter,  then  what? 
Then  it  seems  to  me  that  we  must  change  our  definition  of 
matter  so  completely  as  to  make  it  identical  practically  with 
spirit.  For  we  know,  as  I  said,  that  thought  exists,  feeling 
exists,  consciousness  exists ;  and  we  know  that  whatever 
exists  as  a  fact  to  be  observed  must  have  existed  in  the  cause 
that  produces  that  fact, —  that  is,  the  mind  demands  an  ade- 


94  Signs  of  the  Times 

quate  cause  as  the  explanation  of  any  result.  If,  then,  mat- 
ter is  identical  with  soul,  with  thought,  with  feeling,  with 
fear,  with  love,  with  hope,  with  consciousness,  then  matter  is 
spirit  and  spirit  is  matter;  and  it  is  no  matter  which  term 
you  use. 

I  propose  now  to  raise  two  or  three  objections  to  the 
theory  of  scientific  materialism, —  objections  that  seem  to  me 
absolutely  unanswerable.  If  we  assume  that  matter  and 
spirit  are  practically  identical,  then  that  means  the  death 
of  the  theory  of  scientific  materialism  once  for  all. 

Considering  matter,  then,  in  the  ordinary  way,  it  seems  to 
me  utterly  impossible  for  us,  on  the  theory  of  materialism, 
to  explain  the  fact  of  life.  No  scientific  man  has  ever  yet 
been  able  to  trace  the  origin  of  the  lowest  form  of  life  to 
anything  except  some  pre-existing  form  of  life.  Life  the 
parent  of  life  always  and  everywhere.  Life  never  yet  said 
father  and  mother  to  that  which  was  dead.  The  difference, 
then,  between  the  smallest  particle  of  protoplasm  and  the 
smallest  pinch  of  dust,  one  of  them  being  alive  and  the 
other  not  alive,  is  an  impassable  gulf,  which  cannot  conceiv- 
ably be  crossed  by  the  human  mind.  Indeed,  the  wisest 
scientific  men  of  the  world  admit  this.  They  say  that,  while 
thought  corresponds  to  and,  so  far  as  we  know,  is  insepara- 
ble from  certain  molecular  movements  in  the  brain,  that  yet 
the  thought  is  no  part  of  these  molecular  movements,  does  not 
seem  to  be  the  product  of  them,  and  is  utterly  inexplicable  in 
the  light  of  these  movements.  Tyndall  himself  admits  —  I 
have  quoted  him  on  one  side,  and  I  will  now  quote  him,  in 
substance,  on  the  other  —  that  the  difference  between  feeling 
and  matter  has  never  been  explained  and  cannot  conceivably 
be  explained,  and  that  modern  science  is  no  nearer  to  the 
solution  of  the  problem  than  was  the  earliest  man  who  ever 
asked  the  question.  Life,  then,  cannot  be  explained  in  the 
light  of  this  theory  of  scientific  materialism. 


Scientific  Materialism  95 

One  other  thing  it  seems  to  me  utterly  impossible  to  ex- 
plain on  that  theory,  and  that  is  the  fact  that  men  talk  about 
certain  things  as  right  and  certain  other  things  as  wrong. 
How  does  it  happen,  if  man  is  only  a  temporary  aggregation 
of  particles  of  matter,  produced  without  any  will,  produced 
without  any  consciousness,  produced  without  any  moral 
sense,  without  his  own  will  or  consciousness  or  moral  sense, 
any  thought  of  which  he  is  the  outcome,  how  does  it  happen 
that  this  clod  of  matter  should  stand  upon  its  feet  and  look 
into  the  sky,  look  round  over  the  world,  and  criticise  other 
aggregations  of  matter  as  good  or  as  bad ;  should  look  into 
the  sky  and  feel  like  demanding  of  some  power  an  explana- 
tion for  what  it  feels  to  be  the  evils  of  life  ?  On  that  theory 
there  is  no  court  to  which  an  appeal  can  be  sent  up.  No- 
body is  responsible  for  it ;  nobody  did  it ;  there  is  no  mind 
to  think  about  it,  no  heart  to  care  about  it,  no  hand  to  make 
anything  better,  no  purpose  to  plan  a  result  that  shall  be 
grander. 

How  does  it  happen,  then,  on  this  theory,  that  the  thought 
of  the  distinction  between  right  and  wrong  should  ever 
exist  ?  I  will  warrant  that  no  bowlder  in  the  field  ever  had 
any  accusation  to  bring  against  any  other  bowlder.  No 
flower  ever  found  fault  with  any  other  flower.  No  wild  ani- 
mal in  the  woods  ever  had  a  conception  of  justice  in  the 
relation  in  which  he  stood  to  any  other  wild  animal.  It  is 
only  when  we  come  up  to  self-conscious  man  that  there  is 
the  dawn  of  this  grandest  of  all  faculties,  the  moral  sense  of 
right  and  wrong,  the  thirst  for  justice,  the  desire  for  the  bet- 
terment of  the  world's  affairs. 

Then  there  is  another  thing  that,  it  seems  to  me,  material- 
ism utterly  fails  to  explain  ;  and  that  is  the  essential  fact  of 
religion,  the  fact  of  worship,  the  recognition  of  something 
above  man  that  seems  to  him  admirable,  that  fills  his  soul 


g6  Signs  of  the  Times 

with  awe,  with  glory,  that  lifts  him,  that  thrills  him  with  the 
thought  of  the  sublime.  In  those  very  familiar  lines  of 
Byron  you  remember  he  says  :  — 

"  There  is  a  pleasure  in  the  pathless  woods, 
There  is  a  rapture  on  the  lonely  shore, 
There  is  society,  where  none  intrudes," — 

What  pleasure,  what  rapture,  what  society,  if  Byron  was 
merely  an  aggregation  of  material  particles,  and  if  he  stood 
only  in  the  presence  of  certain  other  aggregations  of  mate- 
rial particles  ?  Why  should  one  mass  of  matter  look  with 
reverence  and  awe  on  matter  of  precisely  the  same  kind  and 
quality  ? 

Then,  what  I  have  many  times  pointed  out,  but  something 
that  sweeps  over  me  more  and  more  every  time  I  think  of  it, 
man  is  the  only  being  on  earth  who  dreams  things  better 
than  ever  were.  Where  did  he  get  the  dream  ?  How,  if  he 
is  simply  the  product  of  material  experience,  does  he  tran- 
scend that  experience  ?  How  does  he  create  an  ideal  world 
so  much  finer  than  this  that  he  calls  it  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  ?  And  then,  gathering  all  the  resources  of  his  own 
brain  and  heart  and  imagination  and  enthusiasm,  bring  them 
to  bear  on  the  work  of  realizing  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ? 

No,  friends,  these  things,  it  seems  to  me,  find  no  answer, 
not  even  an  approach  to  an  explanation,  in  any  materialistic 
theory  of  the  world. 

Consider  for  a  moment.  Man  in  all  ages,  crude  where  he 
was  crude,  barbaric  where  he  was  barbaric,  ignorant  where 
he  was  ignorant,  cruel  where  he  was  cruel,  man  in  all  ages  of 
necessity  has  dreamed  God.  Man  in  all  ages  has  dreamed 
soul.  Man  in  all  ages  has  dreamed  immortal  life.  Now, 
these  dreams,  the  most  flitting  fancy  that  ever  passed  like  a 
cloud  across  the  horizon  of  the  human   mind, —  these   are 


Scientific  Materialism  97 

facts,  these  are  realities.  These  are  parts  of  human  nature 
to  be  accounted  for,  to  be  explained,  as  much  as  a  table,  a 
bowlder,  or  a  mountain.  If  there  be  no  facts  in  the  universe 
corresponding  in  any  way  to  these  grand  dreams,  then  how 
were  they  born?  No  one  ever  saw  the  north  pole.  We 
know  indeed  that  what  we  call  the  north  pole  of  the  earth 
does  not  point  precisely  towards  the  true  north.  No  one 
ever  saw  any  true  north.  Yet  we  know  there  is  a  true  north, 
because  the  magnetic  needle  points  forever  towards  it.  The 
needle  proves  the  existence  of  the  power  that  controls  it. 
This  human  heart  has  always  pointed  Godward,  soulward, 
immortalityward,  justiceward,  truthward.  It  has  always 
pointed  towards  these  high  ideals,  and  it  seems  to  me  abso- 
lute demonstration  that  there  must  be  somewhere  in  this 
universe  something  adequate  to  these ;  or  else  they  are  facts 
without  a  cause.  Let  me  look  at  a  coin,  let  me  examine  the 
impress  of  it,  the  figure,  the  words,  the  date,  and  do  I  not 
know,  though  I  never  saw  it,  and  though  it  may  have  been 
destroyed  a  thousand  years  ago,  that  there  was  once  a  die 
corresponding  to  them? 

We  stand  in  relation  to  this  universe  as  the  coin  to  the 
die,  and  whatever  is  in  us  has  been  put  there  as  a  result; 
and  there  must  be  in  the  universe  somewhere  something 
creatively  corresponding  to  these,  something  corresponding 
to  my  ideal  of  God,  my  ideal  of  the  soul,  my  ideal  of  im- 
mortality, my  dream  of  justice,  my  hope  for  progress,  my 
thoughts  of  the  good  and  the  beautiful.  There  must  be 
something  in  the  universe  corresponding  to  these  to  have 
created  these. 

So  it  seems  to  me,  after  the  best  thought  that  I  can  give 
to  the  subject,  that  materialism  as  an  explanation  of  you  and 
me  is  what  Mr.  Fiske  has  declared  it  to  be,  crude  science 
and  exploded  philosophy.     Not  only  is  it  hopeless,  not  only 


98  Signs  of  the  Times 

does  it  put  us  in  the  hands  of  an  iron  and  careless  necessity, 
not  only  does  it  mock  our  dream  of  perfect  justice  on  earth, 
not  only  does  it  lay  its  cold  hand  of  repression  on  every 
high  ideal,  not  only  does  it  quench  the  light  of  human 
dreams,  not  only  does  it  turn  all  our  ideals  to  folly,  but  it  is 
condemned  in  the  light  of  the  facts  of  human  nature  as  un- 
worthy the  clearest  and  finest  thought,  as  it  is  unsatisfactory 
to  the  noblest  hearts  of  the  world.  Not  only  that ;  for  I  be- 
lieve with  those  who  are  seeking  a  monistic  explanation  of 
the  universe  that  at  the  bottom  the  universe  is  one,  that 
thought  is  one,  that  life  is  one,  that  spirit  is  one  as  God  is 
one.  And,  if  that  be  true,  then  dream  and  hope  and  love 
and  strive  on  still,  for  you  cannot  dream  anything  so  grand 
as  the  reality,  you  cannot  imagine  any  high  ideal  of  justice 
that  shall  not  be  within  grasp,  you  cannot  have  any  hopes 
too  fair,  you  cannot  have  any  desires  too  high ;  for  if  God, 
life,  truth,  love,  justice,  goodness, —  if  these  are  the  heart 
of  things,  then,  though  it  still  doth  not  appear  what  we  shall 
be,  we  know  that,  in  spite  of  our  present  imperfection  and 
discouragement,  we  shall  some  day  "be  like  him."  The 
prayer  of  the  ages  will  be  answered  that  we  may  be  perfect 
even  as  our  Father  in  heaven  is  perfect. 


INGERSOLLISM. 


The  ideas  of  which  Colonel  Ingersoll  is  at  present  the 
most  prominent  exponent  in  the  country  are  not  new.  I 
suppose  he  would  not  claim  that  they  are.  Neither  are  his 
methods  original,  except  in  so  far  as  they  spring  out  of  his 
personal  characteristics  and  peculiarities.  His  ideas  are 
very  largely  those  of  Voltaire,  of  Gibbon,  of  Hume,  of 
Thomas  Paine,  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  of  Benjamin  Franklin, 
and  of  a  good  many  other  of  our  Revolutionary  heroes.  And, 
curiously  enough,  they  are  largely  the  ideas  of  many  of  the 
most  intelligent  Biblical  critics  of  the  modern  world.  Many 
of  these  Biblical  critics  are  still  nominally  connected  with 
the  orthodox  churches.  Colonel  IngersolPs  ideas  of  the 
Bible,  for  example,  are  largely  shared  by  such  men  as  Bishop 
Colenso,  Professor  Robertson  Smith,  the  famous  Scotch 
divine  and  critic,  and  by  many  another  whom,  if  it  were 
worth  while,  I  could  name.  The  ideas,  then,  are  not  new; 
but  he  has  so  identified  himself  in  the  popular  mind  with 
these  ideas  that  they  have  come  to  take  his  name,  and  so  he 
stands  before  the  world  as  one  of  the  marked  Signs  of  the 
Times.  Perhaps  it  would  be  fair  to  say  that  these  ideas  are 
his  in  the  sense  in  which  Hamlet  belongs  to  Shakspere. 
Shakspere  borrowed  the  story  and  almost  all  its  incidents ; 
yet  to-day,  when  we  speak  of  Hamlet  the  Dane,  it  is  not  the 
historical  character,  it  is  the  creation  of  Shakspere,  that  we 
have  in  mind.     So,  when  we  deal  with  this  subject,  we  do 


100  Signs  of  the  Times 

not  go  back  to  the  sources  whence  Colonel  Ingersoll  has 
derived  these  ideas ;  but  we  naturally  and  inevitably  think  of 
him,  because  he  has  made  himself  their  popular,  prominent 
exponent.  I  propose  to  deal  with  him  therefore,  personally, 
only  so  far  as  is  necessary  to  understand  the  Sign  of  the 
Times  which  he  represents.  But  he  has  woven  his  own 
personality  into  his  work  to  so  large  an  extent  that  we  shall 
have  to  deal  with  this  personality.  What  sort  of  a  man 
then  is  he  ? 

He  is,  in  the  first  place,  a  prominent  and  successful  lawyer. 
He  was  an  officer  in  the  army.  I  first  heard  of  him  when 
he  was  practising  in  Peoria,  111.  Thence  he  went  to  Wash- 
ington ;  and  he  is  now  living  in  New  York.  I  have  heard 
only  one  charge  ever  brought  against  him,  outside  of  his  re- 
ligious opinions ;  and  that  I  perhaps  should  note  very  briefly. 
I  speak  of  this  because  there  are  those  who  feel  that  the 
character  of  the  man  who  stands  as  the  exponent  of  a  relig- 
ious —  or,  if  you  choose  to  call  it  so,  an  irreligious  —  move- 
ment is  a  large  factor  in  that  movement.  It  has  been 
charged  upon  Colonel  Ingersoll  that  as  a  lawyer  he  became 
connected  with  a  cause  which  has  left  a  stigma  and  stain 
upon  his  name, —  his  defence  of  two  of  the  men  who  were 
implicated  in  what  was  popularly  known  as  the  "  Star  Route 
Frauds."  I  shall  not  undertake  either  to  accuse  or  to  defend 
him  in  this  matter.  I  confess  to  you  I  do  not  know  enough 
about  it  either  to  condemn  or  to  vindicate.  I  only  know 
this :  that  I  believe  Colonel  Ingersoll  to  be  an  earnest  and 
sincere  man ;  and  when,  some  years  ago  in  Washington,  I 
asked  him  about  his  connection  with  this  case,  he  answered 
me,  even  with  naming  indignation,  asserting  that,  according 
to  his  own  conviction,  the  part  he  had  played  had  been  an 
honorable  and  true  part.  And  I  know  enough  of  him  to 
know  this :   if  he  believed  that  he  was  acting  a  manly  part, 


Ingerso  llism  I O I 

the  accusations,  the  indignation,  the  howls,  of  a  whole  coun- 
try at  his  heels,  would  only  make  him  defend  his  position 
the  more  tenaciously. 

What  else  is  he?  He  is  beyond  question,  in  my  judgment, 
the  most  remarkable  popular  orator  to-day  on  earth.  I 
do  not  say  in  this  country :  I  say  anywhere,  so  far  as 
I  know.  I  have  heard  the  best  speakers  of  this  country;  I 
have  heard  some  of  the  best  speakers  in  England,  including 
Mr.  Gladstone ;  and  I  do  not  know  of  a  man  living  who  has 
such  mighty  mastery  over  a  popular  audience  as  has  he. 
And  the  secret  of  his  power  is  not  far  to  seek.  He  is 
master  of  expression,  wonderful  in  his  power  to  mould  and 
shape  words  to  the  utterance  of  his  thought.  Then  he  is  a 
poet.  I  have  brought  here  a  book  of  selections  from  his 
utterances.  I  would  like  to  read  extracts  illustrating  the 
points  I  make  if  there  were  time.  I  could  read  you  little 
bits,  six  or  eight  or  ten  lines,  that  are  prose  poems,  not 
only  rough  gems  of  thought,  but  fine-cut  jewels  of  expression, 
beautiful  as  flowers,  and  fragrant  with  lovely  ideas. 

Then  he  has  what  any  popular  orator  must  have, —  a  deep, 
high,  broad  sympathy  with  whatever  is  human.  I  shall 
touch  on  this  later.  I  only  wish  to  say  now  that  there  is 
nothing  that  touches  the  interests  or  the  welfare  of  men  that 
does  not  find  echo  in  his  heart  and  brain.  He  feels  with  a 
power  that  is  simply  colossal ;  and  this  I  believe  to  be  the 
key  to  his  character  more  than  anything  else  with  which 
I  am  acquainted. 

He  is,  then,  the  mightiest  popular  orator  of  the  world 
to-day  in  my  opinion,  and  this  without  any  regard  to  the 
subject  that  he  touches.  He  is  not  popular  merely  when  he 
deals  with  the  question  of  religion.  The  first  time  I  heard 
him  it  was  a  political  address ;  and  I  found  myself  shaken 
with  laughter  and  moved  to  tears,  just  as  he  chose  to  play 


102  Signs  of  the  Times 

upon  me,  quite  as  much  as  when  I  have  heard  him  upon  any 
other  theme. 

Another  quality  that  gives  him  popular  power,  and  that  he 
possesses  in  an  unsurpassed  degree,  is  wit,  humor,  such  as 
very  few  other  living  men  possess.  It  is  not  of  purpose,  of 
malice  aforethought,  that  he  ridicules.  The  wit  and  the 
humor  bubble  up  as  naturally  as  do  the  waters  of  a  spring. 
He  does  not  hunt  for  his  humorous  expressions  and  witti- 
cisms. I  have  heard  him  for  an  evening  through  in  private 
conversation,  rippling  and  bubbling  with  humor  and  wit  as 
naturally  as  the  sunshine  shimmers  on  a  summer  sea.  He  is 
one  of  the  most  entertaining  men  in  private  conversation  that 
I  ever  have  seen. 

These  are  the  qualities  that  make  him  so  mighty  as  a  pop- 
ular exponent  of  anything  that  he  chooses  to  advocate. 

Is  he  an  honest  man  ?  Does  he  believe  himself  to  be  a 
reformer,  or  is  he  only  a  vulgar,  cheap  sensationalist,  who  is 
prostituting  these  divine  gifts  to  which  I  have  referred  for 
the  purpose  of  making  money  ?  This  is  the  common  charge 
that  is  made  against  him.  And  let  me  note  here  that  this 
is  almost  the  only  charge  that  is  made  against  him,  and  for 
the  very  significant  reason  that  there  is  no  other  that  can  be 
made,  even  for  a  moment,  to  stick.  I  claim  no  authority  in 
answering  this  :  I  only  express  an  individual  opinion.  I  be- 
lieve, however,  that  he  is  as  honest  and  earnest  as  was  ever 
John  Calvin,  or  Richard  Baxter,  or  Jonathan  Edwards.  I 
believe  he  is  as  sincere  in  whatever  you  choose  to  call  them, 
his  religious  or  his  irreligious  opinions,  as  any  man  that  ever 
lived  or  ever  spoke. 

Consider  for  a  moment.  Does  he  need  to  lecture  on 
religious  subjects  in  order  to  get  money?  If  he  had  no 
other  resources,  or  if  he  could  earn  thrice  as  much  in  this 
way    as   in    any   other,   and  devoted  himself  exclusively   or 


Ingersollism  103 

largely  to  this,  there  might  be  some  basis  for  the  charge.  It 
is  true  that,  if  he  is  advertised  to  speak  on  any  religious 
subject,  in  almost  any  city  in  the  country,  without  anybody 
except  his  own  agent  to  advertise  the  fact,  with  no  manipula- 
tion on  the  part  of  committee  or  manager,  he  can  pack  the 
largest  halls  at  almost  any  price  that  he  chooses  to  charge. 
But  he  is  able  to  make  money  as  a  successful  lawyer;  he 
is  overrun  with  business.  He  can  make  money,  and  he  does, 
all  that  he  wishes  or  needs,  in  other  ways.  He  can  make 
money  as  a  lecturer  equally  well,  whatever  his  subject. 
I  came  across  a  noteworthy  slip  from  a  newspaper,  describ- 
ing an  evening  spent  by  Mr.  Abbey,  the  well-known  theatri- 
cal manager,  at  a  soiree  where  Colonel  Ingersoll  had  been 
talking  about  Shakspere.  Mr.  Abbey  expressed  it  as  his 
opinion  that,  if  the  ideas  uttered  that  evening  in  private 
conversation  were  embodied  in  a  lecture,  it  would  be  the 
grandest  lecture  on  Shakspere  that  the  world  ever  heard; 
and,  furthermore,  he  expressed  his  opinion  as  a  business  man- 
ager by  saying  that  he  would  be  willing  to  guarantee  Colonel 
Ingersoll  one  hundred  thousand  dollars  a  year  if  he  would 
go  over  the  country  lecturing  for  him,  and  let  him  act  as 
his  manager.  So  it  is  not  simply  as  a  religious  disputant 
that  he  is  competent  to  make  money  enough  to  live  on. 
Then  it  seems  to  me  that,  so  long  as  the  great  majority  of 
ministers  feel  the  divine  call  to  leave  a  small  parish  and  a 
poor  salary  to  go  to  a  large  parish  and  a  large  salary  in 
some  city,  it  is  not  quite  safe  for  them  to  trust  to  the  attempt 
to  blacken  his  character  by  charging  him  with  being  under 
the  influence  of  pecuniary  motives.  I  believe,  then,  that  he 
is  honest  and  sincere. 

Not  only  this.  I  believe  he  has  sacrificed,  and  sacrificed 
largely,  for  his  opinions.  The  story  goes  that,  when  he  was 
a  lawyer  in  Peoria,  a  friend  came  one  day  into  his  office. 


104  Signs  of  the  Times 

Looking  over  his  library,  he  came  across  a  copy  of  Paine's 
"  Age  of  Reason."  "  How  much  did  this  cost  you  ?  "  he  in- 
quired. The  answer  came  quick,  "The  governorship  of  Illi- 
nois ! "  Whether  said  or  not,  this  is  doubtless  true.  No 
man  in  the  country  to-day  is  more  conspicuously  gifted  with 
all  those  qualities  that  make  a  man  popular  than  is  he. 
And,  in  my  judgment,  there  is  no  office  in  the  gift  of  the 
people,  not  excepting  the  White  House  itself,  that  he  might 
not  have  reasonably  expected  to  gain,  provided  he  had  been 
willing  to  even  keep  still.  He  need  not  have  changed  his 
opinions:  it  would  have  been  enough  if  he  had  done  as 
many  others  do, —  covered  them  up.  But  he  has  chosen  to 
pay  the  price  of  appearing  what  he  is.  In  an  age  of  so 
much  dodging  and  posturing  for  effect,  let  us  at  least  appre- 
ciate and  honor  the  honesty  that  dares  to  speak  its  mind. 

Now  what  is  his  religious  position  ?  What  are  his  antece- 
dents ?  His  father  was  a  Presbyterian  clergyman.  By  the 
time  he  was  sixteen  years  of  age,  he  was  thoroughly  conver- 
sant with  the  Old  Testament,  and  had  begun  that  criticism 
of  it  which  is  so  familiar  now  to  the  world ;  and  his  father 
confessed  that  he  did  not  know  how  to  answer  him.  The 
confession  of  his  father  will  do  very  well  for  the  confession 
of  most  other  people  who  have  attempted  to  answer  him 
since  then,  so  far  as  these  points  are  concerned. 

There  is  one  little  glimpse  of  his  boyhood  that  I  heard 
him  give  once  in  a  lecture,  which  I  will  attempt  to  repro- 
duce, not  in  his  own  words,  but  in  mine,  showing  what  the 
boy  was  thinking  of,  what  the  tendency  of  his  mind  was 
even  at  that  early  time ;  and  there  is  such  a  sympathy  with 
that  kind  of  boyhood  in  my  own  heart,  as  I  look  back  to  my 
childish  experience,  that  it  touched  me  very  deeply,  whether 
it  will  touch  you  or  not.  He  said :  I  remember  one  after- 
noon in   spring.     I  was  out  in  the  orchard.     I  looked  up 


Ingersollism  105 

and  saw  the  bright  blue  sky  with  clouds  sailing  across  it.  I 
listened,  and  the  air  was  full  of  bird-song.  I  leaned  up 
against  an  apple-tree  that  was  all  a-blossom  over  my  head, 
filling  the  air  with  fragrance.  I  stood  there,  that  sunny,  per- 
fect afternoon,  and  thought  of  —  hell.  That  is  what  was 
pressing  upon  his  heart.  How  many  times  do  I  remember 
a  similar  experience,  lying  on  my  back  in  the  grass,  watch- 
ing the  sky  and  the  clouds,  half  listening  to  the  birds,  and 
thinking  eternity,  eternity,  eternity,  until  I  almost  swooned 
with  trying  to  grasp  the  conception,  and  thinking  what  it 
would  be  to  endure  eternal  pain !  This  is  the  kind  of 
childhood  that  thousands  and  thousands  of  boys  have  gone 
through  in  this  country,  and  in  all  the  past  of  Christendom. 
.  His  father  was  a  Presbyterian  clergyman  ;  and  it  has  been 
charged  against  him,  over  and  over  again,  that  he  was  utterly 
lacking  in  reverence,  even  for  his  parents,  in  attacking  Pres- 
byterianism  so  bitterly  as  he  has  done.  I  wish  to  give  you 
his  idea  of  honoring  his  father  and  mother.  He  says  :  "  You 
never  can  honor  your  father  by  going  round  swearing  to  his 
mistakes.  You  never  can  honor  your  mother  by  saying  that 
ignorance  is  blessed  because  she  did  not  know  everything. 
I  want  to  honor  my  parents  by  finding  out  more  than  they 
did." 

I  think  that  is  sufficient  answer.  It  is  exaggerated  and 
unwise  honor  to  parents  that  has  created  China  the  stagnant 
nation  that  it  is.  Suppose  the  human  race  had  begun  back 
in  the  stone  age  to  honor  father  and  mother  in  such  a  way 
as  to  consider  it  wicked  to  learn  anything  that  they  had  not 
known,  we  should  be  in  the  stone  age  still.  The  way  to 
honor  father  and  mother  is  to  try  to  make  a  better  world  for 
their  grandchildren. 

We  are  ready  now  to  consider  the  religious  position  that 
this  man  occupies.     I  wish  to  try  fairly  and  simply  to  inter- 


106  Signs  of  the  Times 

pret  it  to  you  as  best  I  can.  He  is  known,  fairly  I  think, 
more  than  for  anything  else,  as  the  great  red-hot  antagonist 
of  those  teachings  of  the  Church  which  he  regards  as  incar- 
nate cruelty.  The  great  thing  he  attacks  is  the  orthodox 
belief  in  hell,  because  he  thinks  it  crushes  the  human  heart, 
blots  out  human  happiness,  makes  people  afraid  to  think, 
turns  the  brain  into  a  dungeon,  and  prevents  human  prog- 
ress. 

Now  let  me  refer  to  what  I  hinted  a  little  while  ago,  his 
sympathy.  This  I  said,  and  I  repeat  it,  I  look  upon  as  the 
key  to  his  character  and  career.  I  have  never  known  a  man 
more  tender,  more  easily  touched,  more  easily  moved.  He 
is  as  responsive  to  all  the  movements  of  life  and  thought 
about  him  as  the  leaves  of  a  poplar  tree  to  the  movements 
of  the  air.  As  an  illustration, —  you  will  pardon  the  per- 
sonality,—  some  years  ago,  when  I  was  preaching  in  Wash- 
ington, he  was  living  there,  and  he  thought  that  I  was  either 
so  good  or  so  bad  —  I  never  asked  him  which  —  that  he  de- 
sired to  come  and  hear  me  preach.  He  had  not  been  into  a 
church  for  a  good  many  years.  He  sat  about  four  pews 
from  the  front ;  and,  as  I  preached,  I  naturally  watched  him. 
He  seemed  to  me  to  have  completely  lost  himself,  to  be  as 
unconscious  of  himself  as  a  child  at  a  show.  Whenever 
there  was  a  sharp  remark,  a  smile  would  play  over  his  face; 
and,  when  anything  tender  was  said,  tears  would  start  and 
run  down  his  cheeks,  while  he  was  so  absorbed  in  listening 
that  he  did  not  rouse  himself  to  consciousness  of  their  pres- 
ence even  enough  to  wipe  them  away.  He  seemed  to  be  an 
instrument  to  be  played  on,  as  perfect  in  that  direction  as  he 
has  found  the  hearts  and  brains  of  other  people  instruments 
on  which  he  can  play.  This  tremendous  power  of  sympathy 
turns  him  into  a  flaming  hatred  of  anything  that  seems  to 
him  causeless,  inexcusable  cruelty.     So  this  one  great,  hor- 


Ingersollism  107 

rible,  world-shadowing  dogma  of  eternal  hate  has  been  the 
one  thing  that  he  has  devoted  his  life  to  fighting. 

Let  us  note  a  few  of  the  things  that  he  believes  and  a  few 
that  he  does  not  believe,  without  special  regard  to  logical 
order. 

What  does  he  believe  about  God  ?  He  is  not  an  atheist. 
He  is  only  what  Huxley  and  Herbert  Spencer  and  a  great 
many  of  the  best  scientific  men  of  the  world  are  to-day,  an 
agnostic.  You  ask  him  if  there  is  a  God  in  the  universe, 
and  he  says,  "  I  do  not  know."  He  only  feels  sure  that  there 
is  no  such  God  as  the  one  which  has  been  set  forth  in  the 
creeds  of  the  orthodox  churches.  He  does  not  fight  against 
God.  He  fights  only  against  certain  partial,  incomplete, 
unworthy,  unworshipful,  cruel  conceptions  of  God.  I  heard 
him  say,  humorously,  once :  "  I  do  not  know  whether  there 
is  any  God.  I  live  in  one  of  the  rural  districts  of  the  uni- 
verse, and  I  do  not  know  anything  about  it."  But  he  frankly 
confesses  that  he  can  conceive  of  no  God  that  satisfies  either 
his  brain  or  his  heart.     So  there  he  is  an  agnostic. 

What  about  the  future  life?  I  must,  whether  there  is 
time  or  not,  read  you  one  or  two  brief  extracts  indicating  his 
ideas  in  regard  to  death ;  for,  leaving  aside  certainty  of  the 
future,  I  know  of  nothing  more  beautiful  than  are  these  ex- 
pressions of  his.  In  a  tribute  to  his  own  brother,  he  says  : 
"Life  is  a  narrow  vale  between  the  cold  and  barren  peaks  of 
two  eternities.  We  strive  in  vain  to  look  beyond  the  heights. 
We  cry  aloud,  and  the  only  answer  is  the  echo  of  our  wail- 
ing cry.  From  the  voiceless  lips  of  the  unreplying  dead 
there  comes  no  word ;  but  in  the  night  of  death  hope  sees  a 
star,  and  listening  love  can  hear  the  rustle  of  a  wing." 

Then,  again,  in  his  remarks  at  the  grave  of  a  child  of  a 
friend,  he  says,  "  We  do  not  know  whether  the  grave  is  the 
end  of  this  life  or  the  door  of  another,  or  whether  the  night 
here  is  not  somewhere  else  a  dawn." 


*o8  Signs  of  the   Times 

Again,  he  says  :  "  The  idea  of  immortality,  that,  like  a  sea, 
has  ebbed  and  flowed  in  the  human  heart,  with  its  countless 
waves  of  hope  and  fear  beating  against  the  shores  and  rocks 
of  time  and  fate,  was  not  born  of  any  book,  nor  of  any  creed, 
nor  of  any  religion.  It  was  born  of  human  affection ;  and 
it  will  continue  to  ebb  and  flow  beneath  the  mists  and  clouds 
of  doubt  and  darkness  as  long  as  love  kisses  the  lips  of 
death.  It  is  the  rainbow, —  Hope,  shining  upon  the  tears 
of  grief." 

Short  of  knowledge  of  the  future,  I  do  not  know  of  any- 
thing in  literature  more  sweet  and  beautiful  than  words  like 
these.  He  is  an  agnostic  here,  then,  simply  saying,  "  I  do 
not  know  "  ;  expressing,  however,  his  belief  that,  if  there  be 
any  future,  the  only  way  to  be  ready  for  it  is  to  live  a  noble, 
sweet,  and  true  life  here. 

What  is  his  attitude  in  regard  to  the  Bible  ?  According  to 
popular  opinion,  he  is  spending  a  large  part  of  his  public 
life  ridiculing  the  Bible.  He  has  never  uttered  one  single 
word  of  ridicule  for  the  Bible  itself !  He  has  only  ridiculed 
certain  unfounded  conceptions  of  the  Bible  which  he  regarded 
as  standing  in  the  way  of  human  freedom  and  the  progress 
of  human  thought. 

What  is  his  attitude  towards  Jesus  ?  He  of  course  does 
not  accept  the  theological  Christ.  But,  had  I  time,  I  could 
read  to  you  from  this  book  a  loving,  tender,  reverent,  admir- 
ing tribute  to  the  man  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  rejected,  cast  out, 
persecuted  by  the  same  kind  of  bigotry  whose  sting  his  own 
heart  has  felt. 

What  else  does  he  teach  ?  What  is  his  positive  teaching  ? 
I  do  not  know  anywhere  in  the  world  grander  and  finer 
teaching  concerning  such  great  topics  as  human  liberty, 
justice,  patriotism,  honesty,  the  character  and  possibilities 
of  women,  the  beauty  of  home,  than  his.     He  does  not  wor- 


Ingersollism  109 

ship,  as  he  says ;  but,  when  he  talks  about  worship,  what  he 
means  is  that  which  I  should  repudiate  myself.  He  does 
not  believe  in  singing  hymns  to  or  uttering  words  of  praise 
to  an  infinite  being.  He  thinks  it  belittling  to  the  concep- 
tion of  God  himself  to  suppose  that  he  wants  that  kind  of 
fulsome  flattery.  Again,  had  I  Jime,  I  could  read  you  glit- 
tering sentence  after  sentence  on  this  very  theme  of  worship, 
expressing  what  he  means  by  it, — worshipping  that  which  is 
beautiful,  that  which  is  true,  that  which  is  high,  that  which  is 
noble  in  life,  the  consecration  to  duty  in  the  midst  of  dark- 
ness, of  difficulty,  of  sorrow. 

If  we  leave  one  side  the  question  of  God  and  the  future,  if 
we  simply  concern  ourselves  with  this  life  here,  then  I  hardly 
know  of  any  man  who  has  voiced  its  duties,  who  has 
expressed  its  poetry,  who  has  appreciated  its  sublimity  and 
faithfulness  more  thoroughly  and  more  completely  than  he. 

I  wish  now  to  raise  the  question,  which  seems  to  me  a 
perfectly  legitimate  one,  What  is  the  cause  of  a  career  like 
this  of  Mr.  IngersolPs  ?  What  has  thrown  him  into  such 
extreme  reaction  ?  I  believe  that  he  is  a  legitimate,  nat- 
ural, necessary  outcome  of  the  time.  He  is  a  product, 
by  repulsion,  of  that  type  of  religion,  of  theology,  which  he 
has  devoted  his  life  to  antagonizing  so  earnestly  and  so 
successfully.  Given  the  teachings  concerning  God  and  man 
and  destiny,  given  the  old  creeds,  and  given  a  man  who 
thinks,  and  who  has  a  heart  to  be  touched,  who  has  a  sense 
of  justice,  who  is  brave  enough  to  speak,  and  you  have  a 
man  like  Ingersoll, —  the  natural,  necessary  reaction  from 
the  old  creed.  And  I  am  willing  to  put  myself  on  record 
as  saying  this,  and  saying  it  with  all  the  emphasis  of  which 
I  am  capable, —  and  you  know  I  do  not  agree  with  Mr. 
Ingersoll  concerning  some  of  the  points  which  I  regard  as 
of   unspeakable  importance; — must  I   choose   between   the 


no  Signs  of  the   Times 

conception  of  the  world,  of  God,  of  man,  of  destiny,  set  forth 
in  any  of  the  authoritative  creeds  of  the  orthodox  churches 
of  to-day  and  the  position  of  Colonel  Ingersoll,  I  would  take 
my  place  gladly,  lovingly,  tenderly,  by  his  side,  and  await 
the  outcome,  whatever  it  might  be.  Rather  than  hold  such 
a  view  of  God,  of  his  relation  to  his  children,  and  of  the 
future,  as  is  set  forth  in  the  old  creeds,  oh,  I  would  infinitely 
rather  try  to  lighten  human  burdens  for  a  little  while  here, 
lift  off  the  weight  from  some  heart  that  was  crushed,  wipe 
away  a  tear  from  some  eye  that  was  so  blinded  that  it  could 
not  see  the  way,  do  some  little  thing  to  make  the  world 
better  and  brighter,  and  then  sleep  forever.  I  would  thank 
God  for  the  dust  and  the  worm  and  the  darkness  and  the 
utter  silence  infinitely  more  than  I  would  thank  him  for  his 
heaven,  with  me  at  his  right  hand,  while  away  over  yonder 
the  smoke  of  "  their  torment "  should  "  ascend  forever  and 
ever." 

At  the  risk  of  repeating  what  I  may  have  given  you  before, 
and  to  show  that  I  do  not  hold  these  ideas  alone,  let  me 
read  to  you  a  few  lines  from  Tennyson,  of  the  Church  of 
England,  and  one  of  the  finest  poets  of  the  modern  world. 
In  his  poem  called  "Despair,"  he  sets  forth  the  fact  that  a 
man  and  his  wife,  who  had  been  attending  one  of  the  dis- 
senters' chapels  in  England,  had  come  to  doubt  the  kind  of 
God  and  man  and  destiny  there  preached.  Having  lost 
faith  in  God  and  in  the  future,  reaction  sets  in,  and  the  man 
and  his  wife  agree  that  they  will  get  rid  of  their  burden  by 
committing  suicide  together.  For  that  purpose  they  go 
down  to  the  sea,  and  walk  into  the  waves.  The  woman  is 
drowned,  but  the  husband  is  swept  ashore,  where  he  finds 
the  minister  of  the  little  chapel  bending  over  him;  and  a 
part  of  the  poem  is  devoted  to  conversation  between  them, 
and  the  man  expresses  his  ideas  and,  of  course,  the  idea  of 


Ingersollism  ill 

Tennyson,    as   is   plain   enough.     You   would  think  I  were 
blaspheming,  if  I  were  not  quoting:  — 

What !  I  should  call  on  that  Infinite  Love  that  has  served  us  so  well  ? 

Infinite  cruelty,  rather,  that  made  everlasting  Hell, 

Made  us,  foreknew  us,  foredoomed  us,  and  does  what  he  will  with  his 

own; 
Better  our  dead  brute  mother  who  never  has  heard  us  groan ! 

Hell  ?  if  the  souls  of  men  were  immortal,  as  men  have  been  told, 

The  lecher  would  cleave  to  his  lusts,  and  the  miser  would  yearn  for  his 

gold, 
And  so  there  were  Hell  forever !  but,  were  there  a  God  as  you  say, 
His  Love  would  have  power  over  Hell  till  it  utterly  vanished  away. 
Ah  yet  —  I  have  had  some  glimmer,  at  times,  in  my  gloomiest  woe, 

Of  a  God  behind  all  —  after  all  —  the  great  God  for  aught  that  I  know ; 
But  the  God  of  Love  and  of  Hell  together  —  they  cannot  be  thought, 
If  there  be  such  a  God,  may  the  Great  God  curse  him  and  bring  him  to 
naught ! 

Blasphemy  !  whose  is  the  fault  ?  is  it  mine  ?  for  why  would  you  save 
A  madman  to  vex  you  with  wretched  words,  who  is  best  in  his  grave  ? 
Blasphemy !  ay,  why  not,  being  damned  beyond  hope  of  grace  ? 
Oh,  would  I  were  yonder  with  her,  and  away  from  your  faith  and  your 
face! 

Blasphemy !  true !  I  have  scared  you  pale  with  my  scandalous  talk, 
But  the  blasphemy  to  my  mind  lies  all  in  the  way  that  you  walk. 

So  far  Tennyson.  And  I  utter  again  every  word  that  he 
says.  For,  if  I  were  compelled  to  choose  between  a  life  of 
human  helpfulness  here  without  God  or  hope,  followed  by  an 
eternal  sleep  and  the  God  of  the  old  creeds,  I  would  not 
hesitate  long  enough  to  give  utterance  to  my  eagerness  in 
choosing  the  first;   and,  if  I  have   a  friend  on  earth  who 


112  Signs  of  the  Times 

would  not  choose  to  go  with  me  on  those  conditions,  I  hope 
he  will  never  tell  me  so,  for  I  could  not  respect  him  so  much 
afterwards. 

And  now  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  by  way  of  criticism 
and  to  make  a  little  more  clear  what  I  regard  as  the  defects 
of  Mr.  IngersolPs  position.  His  defects  are  almost  entirely 
negative  defects.  I  do  not  know  one  line,  one  word,  one 
syllable,  of  positive  teaching  on  the  part  of  Ingersoll  con- 
cerning any  great  question  of  secular  interest  that  is  not 
noble  and  fine  and  sweet  and  true,  as  healthy  as  the  air  and 
as  fragrant  as  the  lilies  of  the  field.  I  do  not  know  one 
word  of  positive  teaching  concerning  our  life  here  that  he 
need  wish  to  blot. 

And  his  home  life  is  as  sweet  as  a  poem.  Those  who 
have  had  inside  glimpses  of  his  household  have  learned  that, 
if  nothing  else  is  worshipped  there,  at  least  he  himself  is  — 
by  his  wife  and  children. 

But  it  is  said  he  has  no  reverence.  Perhaps  here  it  may 
be  well  to  quote  what  he  says  of  Voltaire  :  "  In  the  presence 
of  absurdity  he  laughed,  and  was  called  irreverent."  The 
matter  of  reverence  is  a  relative  one.  No  man  reverences 
those  things  that  he  regards  as  not  worthy  of  it.  And  most 
certainly  no  man  shows  more  reverence  for  all  that  is  hu- 
manly worthy  than  does  he. 

And  is  it  not  well  for  us  now  and  then  to  recognize  the 
fact  that  even  the  Bible  itself,  in  its  finest  parts,  puts  human- 
ity first  ?  Jesus  teaches  that  so  long  as  we  are  out  of  right 
relation  to  our  fellow-men  we  can  offer  no  acceptable  wor- 
ship to  God.     (See  Matt.  v.  23,  24.) 

And  the  prophet  Micah  puts  the  doing  justly  and  the  lov- 
ing mercy  before  the  walking  humbly  with  God.  And  John 
questions  the  sincerity  of  professed  love  to  God  where  the 
love  for  the  brother  is  not  apparent.     Charles  Sumner  used 


Ingersollism  113 

to  say,  speaking  of  the  two  great  commandments  (love  to 
God  and  love  to  man),  that  he  was  afraid  he  did  not  know 
much  about  the  first,  but  he  tried  to  keep  the  second. 

But  I  said  I  was  going  to  criticise.  Let  me  come  then  to 
a  few  hints  in  that  direction.  I  cannot  regard  Colonel  In- 
gersoll's  philosophy  of  the  universe  as  a  profound  philoso- 
phy. I  cannot  think  that  he  grasps  it  as  completely  as  one 
might.  I  believe  with  my  whole  soul  in  God  as  the  neces- 
sary key  to  the  explanation  of  what  is.  I  regard  his  philoso- 
phy of  evil  as  not  profound.  For  if  there  be  God,  purpose, 
outcome,  then  that  evil  which  troubles  the  tender-hearted 
colonel  becomes  a  shadow,  a  morning  mist  that  flees  away 
in  the  presence  of  the  eternal  sunrise.  I  cannot  think  his 
philosophy  of  human  nature,  this  wonderful  mystery  of  the 
human  soul,  to  be  profound  or  complete.  He  deals  too 
much  with  the  surface  of  things.  I  cannot  think  that  he 
has  estimated  at  their  true  worth  the  indicators  that  point, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  with  practical  certainty  towards  the  out- 
come over  there  beyond  the  shadow  that  shall  redeem  all 
the  littleness,  all  the  misery,  all  the  pain,  all  the  cruelty, 
all  the  darkness,  of  the  past  of  human  history.  One  more 
defect  I  wish  to  mention.  I  think  that  in  his  lectures  and 
in  his  writings  he  makes  the  mistake  of  identifying  relig- 
ion and  theology,  which  is  only  the  theory  of  religion.  He 
finds  the  one  so  faulty  and  so  easily  overthrown  that  he 
seems  to  imagine  that  religion  is  only  a  passing  phase  of 
human  life  and  is  destined  to  vanish  away. 

If  now  any  one  is  anxious  to  take  away  the  power  and 
destroy  the  influence  of  men  like  Colonel  Ingersoll,  there 
is  one  sure  way.  Take  away  the  false,  the  untenable,  the 
absurd,  the  unjust,  from  the  religious  life  of  the  time,  and 
help  build  a  religion  that  is  reasonable,  humane,  tender,  and 
true.  True  religion  cannot  be  ridiculed,  for  it  is  not  ridicu- 
lous. 


114  Signs  of  the  Times 

And  now,  at  the  close,  I  wish  only  to  say  that  if  the  colo- 
nel is  mistaken  in  his  doubts  as  to  a  future  life,  I  do  not 
believe  he  will  be  sorry  to  confess  his  mistake.  If  I  meet 
him  over  there,  I  believe  that  his  true  heart  will  respond  to 
everything  true.  As  he  now  admires  that  which  is  admi- 
rable, he  will  easily  flame  out  into  worship ;  and  he  will  be 
the  readiest  to  confess  the  limitations  of  his  thought  here, 
and  to  go  about  fearlessly  proclaiming  the  truth,  earnestly 
trying  to  perform  his  duty,  being  faithful  and  true  to  friend- 
ship and  to  love  as  he  is  here  below. 


RELIGOIUS  REACTION. 


In  any  age  when  there  is  a  forward  movement,  whether 
religious  or  otherwise,  there  will  always  be  noted  along  with 
it  signs  and  movements  of  reaction.  Perhaps  it  is  safe  to 
say  that  the  intensity  of  the  one  fairly  gauges  the  intensity 
of  the  other.  Yet,  when  the  representatives  of  this  forward 
movement  note  these  signs  of  reaction,  there  is  apt  to  be  a 
feeling  of  discouragement,  a  questioning  as  to  whether  the 
progress  that  they  believe  in  really  exists,  whether  the  world 
is  moving  forward  as  fast  as  might  reasonably  be  expected. 
When  we  see  intense  activity  on  the  part  of  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  older  types  of  thought,  when  we  see  a  schol- 
arly and  religious  man  like  Dr.  Huntington  leaving  the  new 
movement  and  going  back  to  the  old,  when  we  see  a  man 
like  John  Henry  Newman,  whose  intellect  and  character 
command  the  reverence  of  the  world,  leaving  the  forward 
movement  and  going  back  to  the  old,  it  is  not  strange  if 
people  raise  the  question  whether  they  are  right.  People 
say  to  me  :  Here  is  so  and  so,  a  good  man,  an  earnest  man, 
a  seeker  of  the  truth,  a  scholar,  and  he  is  going  in  precisely 
the  opposite  direction  from  what  you  are  taking.  I  am  ear- 
nest, I  desire  to  know  the  way,  but  I  am  not  a  scholar :  how 
shall  I  know  which  of  you  is  right  ? 

These  signs  and  tendencies  of  religious  reaction,  then, 
need  to  be  noted,  to  be  understood,  and  to  be  assigned  their 


1 1 6  Signs  of  the  Times 

place,  so  that  we  may  comprehend  what  they  mean  and  not 
be  overmuch  disturbed  by  them. 

When  the  children  of  Israel  went  out  of  Egypt,  the  story 
tells  us  that  they  came  in  a  short  time  to  the  borders  of  the 
land  of  promise.  Here  they  paused  for  a  little,  and  ap- 
pointed twelve  trusty  representatives,  one  from  each  tribe,  to 
go  over  and  investigate  the  country,  to  find  out  its  condition, 
its  desirability  as  a  place  of  residence,  and  the  difficulties  in 
the  way  of  conquest;  and  the  story  goes  on  to  tell  us  that, 
in  spite  of  the  fact  that  they  had  the  definite  command  of 
God  to  go  forward  without  fear,  that  this  was  the  country 
destined  to  be  theirs,  that  they  were  not  to  be  afraid  of  the 
stories  of  giants  and  of  impregnable  fortifications,  still  ten 
out  of  the  twelve  voted  against  that  forward  movement. 
There  were  only  two  of  that  high  faith  and  trust  that  dared 
go  forward.  And  I  suppose  it  is  true  that  the  world  never 
stood  on  the  borders  of  any  promised  land  but  the  majority 
voted,  at  first,  at  any  rate,  against  the  forward  movement. 
The  majority  is  never  quite  up  to  the  highest,  finest,  and 
noblest  things. 

When  I  was  a  boy,  I  lived  on  the  banks  of  a  beautiful 
river.  I  learned  to  love  the  river,  and  I  learned  to  be  famil- 
iar with  its  habits ;  and  I  noted  the  fact  that  in  the  summer 
when  the  water  was  low,  when  the  tide  flowed  on  with  a 
peaceful,  gentle,  almost  sluggish,  motion,  the  stream  was 
always  forward,  or  almost  always.  There  was  rarely  an 
eddy,  rarely  a  backward  current,  or,  if  there  was  any  at  all, 
it  was  so  slight,  it  had  so  little  force,  that  it  could  hardly 
float  a  chip  upon  its  surface.  But  I  noted  another  thing: 
in  the  spring-time,  when  the  snows  were  melting  up  in  the 
mountains  towards  the  north,  when  the  river  swelled  in  its 
banks  and  there  was  a  flood,  when  the  tide  was  mighty  and 
resistless  in  its  force  and  in  its  forward  motion,  then  the 


Religious  Reaction  117 

eddies,  the  backward  currents,  were  quite  as  marked,  quite 
as  forceful.  There  was  power  enough  in  them  sometimes  to 
seize  some  great  tree  that  was  floating  down  the  stream  and 
sweep  it  for  a  time  backward  up  the  river.  So  I  learned  a 
lesson, —  that  the  force  of  the  eddy,  the  force  of  the  back- 
water, is  in  correspondence  with  the  force  of  the  general  cur- 
rent that  sweeps  onward  towards  the  sea. 

I  wish  to  call  your  attention  now  to  a  few  illustrations  of 
the  fact  that  religious  reaction  always  accompanies  any  great 
time  of  definite  and  distinct  forward  movement.  Just  at  the 
time  when  Christianity  was  first  becoming  a  force  among  the 
Hebrew  people,  there  was  also  along  with  it  the  most  intense 
devotion  to  the  ritual,  to  the  keeping  of  the  old  Mosaic  order. 
There  was  an  activity  in  the  old  religious  life  such  as  had 
hardly  ever  been  seen  in  opposition  to  that  which  seemed  to 
threaten  its  permanence  and  to  all  that  promised  a  new 
and  larger  life  for  the  world.  And  in  the  fourth  century, 
after  Christianity  had  conquered  the  Roman  Empire,  after 
Constantine  had  made  it  the  religion  of  the  court,  the  author- 
itative religion  of  the  State,  and  it  seemed  supreme,  there 
came,  under  the  reign  of  Julian,  one  of  his  immediate  suc- 
cessors, his  nephew,  a  wide-spread  revival  of  the  old  Pagan- 
ism such  as  the  world  had  hardly  seen  for  centuries.  New 
temples  were  built,  old  temples  were  repaired.  Altars  were 
raised,  sacrifices  performed.  The  old  rites  and  ceremonies 
took  on  the  appearance  of  life  such  as  they  had  rarely 
known.  It  seemed  like  the  upflaring  of  a  fire,  more  brill- 
iant than  ever  just  before  going  out. 

When  the  Reformation  came,  wounding  to  the  death  as  it 
did  the  Romish  Church,  in  connection  with  that  movement 
there  was  a  grand  revival  of  Romanism.  There  was  a 
marshalling  of  its  forces,  a  gathering  of  its  powers  to  meet 
this   threatened   attack,  so   that   Romanism   never   seemed 


Il8  Signs  of  the  Times 

more  alive  than  it  did  in  its  opposition  to  the  young  Refor- 
mation. And  when  a  few  years  ago  at  Oxford  the  "Essays 
and  Reviews  "  were  published,  marking  a  sort  of  renaissance 
of  liberal  thought,  a  new  birth  of  the  brain  and  scholarship 
of  England,  there  went  along  with  it  a  movement  that  has 
taken  the  name  of  Dr.  Pusey,  and  the  time  was  marked  by 
the  reaction  of  John  Henry  Newman  and  some  of  the  lead- 
ing minds  of  the  English  Church.  At  this  point  of  time, 
when  human  thought  was  rousing  itself  to  these  new  con- 
quests, just  then  these  great  lights  and  leaders  went  deliber- 
ately back  and  vowed  their  allegiance  to  the  older  faith. 

So  to-day  we  find,  on  the  one  hand,  the  movement  of  relig- 
ious thought  that  promises  emancipation  to  the  world,  that 
promises  a  new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  ;  yet,  on  the  other,  we 
find  books  published  and  elaborate  schemes  of  thought  set 
forth  for  the  older  ideas.  We  find  men  on  every  hand  turn- 
ing back  to  these,  trying  to  prove  that  there  is  some  way  by 
which  they  may  remain  loyal  to  the  old  faith,  in  spite  of  the 
new  light  that  is  coming  into  the  world.  We  find  intense 
religious  activities,  popular  revivalism,  under  marked  and 
mighty  leaders  over  the  world,  such  as  have  rarely  been 
seen.  We  find  men  leaving  the  older  types  of  a  severe  Or- 
thodoxy because  the  doctrine  hurts,  laying  the  emphasis  of 
their  lives  not  on  those  doctrines,  but  going  into  some  form 
of  Episcopacy,  some  established  Church,  where  they  can  lay 
the  emphasis  on  the  rites,  on  the  ceremonies,  where  they  can 
forget  the  doctrinal  conditions,  where  they  can  lose  them- 
selves in  those  charitable  works  that  absorb  so  much  of  their 
time. 

In  conversation  with  a  clergyman  of  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land last  summer,  I  asked  him  about  the  tendency  of  the 
younger  thinkers  in  the  church ;  and  he  said  that  many  and 
many  a  man  —  and  he  spoke  of  it  as  quite  a  general  move- 


Religious  Reaction  119 

merit  —  as  the  necessary  and  logical  outcome  would  do  one 
of  two  things.  They  would  either  stop  thinking,  because 
afraid  to  follow  thought  to  its  logical  conclusion,  and  turn 
their  attention  to  the  work  of  practical  charity  and  human 
service,  or  else  they  would  take  refuge  in  the  High  Church 
forms  and  rituals,  where  the  emphasis  could  be  placed  on 
these  things,  and  where  they  might  escape  from  the  struggle 
and  conflict  of  the  modern  world. 

These  are  sufficient  as  illustrations  of  the  tendency  towards 
religious  reaction. 

I  wish  now,  if  I  can,  to  offer  you,  in  a  spirit  of  perfect 
fairness  and  kindness  towards  those  with  whom  I  am  deal- 
ing, some  suggestions  as  to  causes.  What  is  the  reason  for 
this  religious  reaction,  this  going  back  to  the  older  thought 
and  to  what  you  and  I  are  accustomed  to  think  of  as  lower 
types  of  religious  faith  and  practice  ? 

I  shall  mention  several  causes,  but  I  wish  in  the  first  place 
to  call  your  attention  to  one  of  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  philosophy  of  evolution.  We  are  familiar  with  this  gen- 
eral tendency  of  all  things  to  grow  and  to  lift,  and  this  is 
what  we  mean  by  the  doctrine  of  evolution.  Things  grow 
from  low  to  high,  from  the  simple  to  the  complex,  developing 
higher  and  higher.  But  yet  the  tendency  to  degenerate  on 
the  part  of  these  types,  these  forms  of  life  that  are  not  so 
circumstanced  as  to  make  growth  the  natural  and  easy  thing, 
is  just  as  much  a  part  of  evolution  as  is  the  tendency  to  grow 
when  all  things  favor  development.  So  along  with  this 
growth  of  things  there  is  perpetually  to  be  witnessed  the 
tendency  towards  what  scientists  call  atavism, —  that  is,  a 
reversion  towards  an  older,  lower  form  of  the  same  thing, 
the  same  growth;  something  that  had  been  passed  by  re- 
verted to  again. 

WTe  find  the  same  tendency  in  the  animal  world.     After 


120  Signs  of  the   Times 

the  higher  and  finer  species  have  been  developed,  there  will 
be  now  and  then  a  reversal  of  the  process  apparently,  a 
falling  back  and  down,  a  manifestation  of  some  one  of  the 
lower  forms  and  types  of  life.  We  find  this  to  be  a  law: 
that  the  highest  and  finest  and  last  development  in  any 
direction,  vegetable,  animal,  human,  is  always  of  necessity 
the  least  fixed,  the  least  stable,  the  first  to  feel  the  effect  of 
any  change  of  climate  or  condition.  It  is  the  last,  highest, 
finest  bud  on  the  tree  that  is  the  most  easily  frost-nipped,  if 
the  weather  changes  or  becomes  unfavorable  to  its  growth. 
The  hardier  and  older  parts  of  the  tree  can  stand  it.  They 
are  more  fixed  in  their  form. 

We  find  the  same  precisely  in  regard  to  men.  This  indi- 
vidual reason  of  ours  by  which  we  look  over  the  facts  of 
life  and  decide  as  to  what  we  should  do  in  a  given  set  of 
circumstances  is  the  last  and  highest  development  of  the 
human  mind.  The  instinctive  life,  the  impulsive  life,  we  all 
share  with  the  animal  world:  this  is  the  older,  and  conse- 
quently less  easily  disturbed.  When  a  man  is  old,  for  ex- 
ample, you  will  find  that  he  frequently  becomes  more  con- 
servative. He  falls  back  on  to  the  lower,  older  life, —  that 
which  he  inherited,  that  which  he  was  accustomed  to  as  a 
child.  If  a  man  becomes  insane,  it  will  be  the  highest  and 
finest  part  of  his  brain  that  will  go  first.  The  lower,  the  in- 
stinctive, remains  substantially  the  same.  The  automatic 
part  of  him  is  about  as  it  was  before.  So  in  the  presence  of 
some  great  overmastering  emotion.  Let,  for  instance,  a 
panic  take  a  crowd,  and  the  reasoning  faculty,  the  highest 
and  best  part  of  the  man,  seems  to  be  swept  away;  and 
suddenly  he  is  an  animal.  He  is  simply  carried  away  by 
impulse  and  passion  and  instinct.  The  reasoning  faculty  for 
the  time  is  broken  down ;  and  the  lower,  older  part  of  his 
nature  reasserts  itself. 


Religions  React 

So  we  find  that  it  is  not  an  uncommon  tI3fflg'TiJr.!>UHIe  great, 
distinguished  leader,  in  the  direction  of  the  larger  liberty  of 
the  world,  in  his  old  age  to  become  false  to  the  grandest 
things  he  ever  said  or  did.  Perhaps  a  man  who  has  de- 
spised the  charlatanry  of  the  old  priesthood  in  his  old  age 
becomes  a  child  again,  and  feels  too  feeble  to  stand  alone, 
and  calls  in  the  aid  of  the  very  priest  whose  work  he  at- 
tempted in  his  maturer  time  to  overthrow;  and  the  world 
has  been  troubled  by  it.  And  sometimes  this  has  been  used 
as  a  proof  that  the  new  thought  was  false  and  wrong,  and 
could  not  endure  the  stress  of  the  last  and  dying  hour,  when 
a  man  was  facing  the  great  facts  of  God  and  eternity. 
What  it  means,  however,  is  simply  that  his  physical  weakness 
has  brought  about  the  decay,  the  disintegration,  of  the  high- 
est and  finest  part  of  his  life.  There  is  a  reversal,  a  falling 
back  and  down,  upon  the  old,  inherited,  more  stable  part  of 
his  nature,  that  which  has  long  endured. 

One  of  the  finest  touches  of  nature  anywhere  in  Shak- 
spere  that  I  am  familiar  with  is  that  where  some  one,  speak- 
ing of  Falstaff  when  he  is  dying,  says  that  he  "  babbles  of 
green  fields."  His  life  as  a  courtier  and  soldier  and  man  of 
the  world  was  all  gone.  He  was  a  child  again  for  the  time, 
because  the  highest  and  last  added  element  of  his  life  was 
undergoing  a  process  of  decay,  and  he  was  sinking  back 
into  his  older  and  lower  conditions.  Here,  then,  is  one 
reason  that  explains  this  religious  reaction  that  we  find  con- 
nected with  all  epochs  of  the  world's  progress. 

Then  there  is  another  reason  for  turning  back.  It  seems 
very  strange  to  me,  and  yet  I  know  it  is  true  on  every  hand. 
People  think  that  it  is  safe  for  the  world  to  go  as  far  as  they 
themselves  go,  but  they  think  that  there  is  some  hidden 
danger  in  taking  a  step  beyond.  They  make  themselves 
the  measure  of  what  is  proper  in  the  way  of  the  world's 


122  Signs  of  the  Times 

advance.  They  seem  to  be  afraid ;  and  I  have  no  question 
that  in  most  of  the  cases  it  is  a  genuine,  earnest,  noble 
anxiety  that  the  essence  of  the  religious  life  is  in  danger, 
if  people  go,  as  they  say,  too  far.  In  many  cases,  it  is  a 
genuine  desire  to  save  that  which  they  believe  is  precious 
to  the  world,  and  on  which  the  world's  life  depends.  Sup- 
pose—  I  think  you  will  see  the  parallel  —  that  a  man  had 
been  born  and  had  grown  up  in  a  room  through  which  the 
light  entered  only  by  the  medium  of  colored  glass  or  some 
curiously  constructed  prism.  Suppose  he  had  never  seen 
the  outside  world,  but  had  learned  to  love  the  light,  to  think 
•of  it  as  coming  from  heaven, —  a  precious  possession  by 
means  of  which  he  could  see  his  way,  by  means  of  which 
he  could  discern  forms  of  beauty,  by  means  of  which  he 
could  look  into  the  faces  of  those  he  loved,  by  means  of 
which  he  could  read  and  study.  He  had  learned  to  think 
that  light  was  a  precious  and  blessed  thing.  If  some  one, 
then,  should  come  along  and  propose  to  him  to  open  the 
windows,  to  remove  the  glass,  to  take  away  the  prism,  he 
would  undoubtedly  be  fearful  that  the  light  itself  might  be 
lost.  He  could  not  think  of  light  as  being  safe  in  limitless 
space,  of  its  being  lighter  still  out  of  doors :  so  he  might 
even  fight  against  being  released  from  this  which  was  really 
a  prison-house. 

Then,  again,  in  other  cases  I  have  no  doubt  that  the 
influence  is  of  that  sort  which  makes  us  love  the  old,  love 
that  to  which  we  have  been  accustomed,  to  feel  ill  at  ease 
anywhere  else.  It  is  not  easy  for  a  man  to  come  out  from 
the  midst  of  the  circumstances  that  have  cradled  him,  to  be 
flung  over  the  edge  of  his  nest,  to  try  his  new-found  wings, 
to  do  it  fearlessly  and  freely.  The  nest  is  softly  lined,  it 
is  comfortable,  it  is  home.  There  is  no  place  to  rest  in  the 
air:  it  is  filled  sometimes  with  rain  and  sleet  and  storm. 


Religious  Reaction  123 

No  wonder  that  people  love  their  nests  !  To  be  released, 
to  be  driven  out  into  this  great,  wide,  wild  universe,  people 
feel  as  though  they  were  lost.  We  know  so  very  little,  after 
all,  we  are  overwhelmed  with  the  sense  of  that  which  is  un- 
known. We  feel  at  home  in  these  quieter,  well-accustomed 
places.  No  matter  what  success  a  man  may  have  had  in  his 
life,  however  beautiful  his  home  may  be,  he  will  never  cease 
to  dream  of  the  old  home  where  father  and  mother  were. 
There  will  seem  an  atmosphere  about  it  that  is  lost  to  his 
later  experience.  This  atmosphere  remains,  and  touches 
his  heart :  it  appeals  to  all  that  is  tender  and  high  and  fine. 
I  should  not  respect  him  if  it  were  not  so.  But  this  same 
principle  works  in  regard  to  all  religious  ideas.  There  is 
loss,  and  a  definite  loss  —  I  feel  it  myself  —  in  losing  that 
intangible  atmosphere  of  the  religious  life  which  I  found  in 
my  childhood,  with  mother  teaching  me  what  she  believed 
to  be  true.  I  would  not  for  one  instant  go  back ;  but  I  can 
imagine  cases  where  this  loving  longing  for  the  old  is  so 
much  stronger  than  the  conviction  of  the  necessity  that 
drives  one  out,  as  Abraham  went  forth  under  the  call  of 
God,  as  to  lead  one  to  go  back  again  for  peace  and  for  the 
sake  of  finding  that  older  association. 

Then — you  see  how  one  of  these  causes  springs  out 
of  another  —  people  become  tired  of  thinking.  I  have 
known  many  cases  of  persons  who  had  started  out  bravely, 
convinced,  as  it  appeared,  of  the  truth  of  the  new  thought, 
the  new  ideas,  but  who  became  tired  of  wandering  in  this 
wide  universe.  They  felt  that  they  knew  so  little  and  that 
there  was  so  much  more  that  they  did  not  know. 

Then  it  is  one  of  the  most  difficult  things  in  the  world  for 
people  to  rest  in  an  unsettled  state  of  mind.  The  very  word 
"  unsettled  "  contradicts  the  possibility  of  thought  of  rest. 
There  are  not  many  who  can  say,  So  much  I  know,  but  a 


124  Signs  of  the  Times 

million  more  things  I  do  not  know :  I  will  hold  my  mind 
open  concerning  them.  It  is  immensely  difficult.  Most 
people  feel  a  necessity  for  their  minds  being  made  up  in 
regard  to  everything ;  and  it  assures  a  sense  of  mental 
relief,  of  rest,  to  give  up  this  weary  struggle  of  thinking  for 
one's  self,  of  having  opinions  of  one's  own.  I  feel  this 
myself  at  times.  It  is  a  relief  to  be  able  to  go  to  a  man 
of  admitted  authority,  and  take  what  he  says  about  God  and 
about  the  universe,  and  let  it  go  at  that.  Sometimes  it 
would  be  a  relief  to  those  who  really  think,  who  really 
believe,  who  really  trust  God,  who  really  appreciate  the 
grandeur  of  this  spirit  of  truth-seeking,  to  give  up  the  grand 
pain  of  thinking.  And  undoubtedly  this  does  lead  many  a 
man  towards  religious  reaction. 

Then  there  is  one  other  motive,  and  one  that  is  mighty 
and  strong.  It  springs  out  of  the  very  best  thing  in  man. 
It  is  his  self-distrust,  his  modesty.  He  sees  the  whole  great 
world  against  him  ;  and  the  question  sweeps  over  him  — 
what  wonder  that  it  sometimes  sweeps  him  off  his  feet  or 
sweeps  his  breath  away  —  whether  there  is  not  an  immense 
egotism  in  clinging  to  the  conviction,  I  am  right,  in  the  face 
of  all  the  ages.  Here  is  this  grand  consensus  of  the  cen- 
turies :  what  if  a  man  shrink  from  going  out  and  saying,  I 
am  right,  and  yet  I  differ  from  all  these  ?  It  is  magnificent 
when  a  man  dares  to  say  that  "  one  with  God  is  a  majority  " ; 
but  suppose  the  question  suggests  itself  to  him  whether  it 
be  not  one  without  God, —  then  it  is  anything  but  a  majority. 
And  we  must  modestly  confess  that  nine  times  out  of  ten, 
when  a  man  starts  out  to  lecture  and  teach  the  world,  and 
he  is  alone  and  the  world  is  all  the  other  way,  the  world  is 
right  and  he  is  wrong.  It  is  well,  indeed,  that  the  world 
does  not  listen  to  all  its  would-be  reformers.  We  have  only 
to  look  over  the  surface  of  society  to-day,  and   note  how 


Religions  Reaction  125 

many  reformers  there  are  and  how  many  of  them  would 
reform  the  world  in  entirely  different  directions,  to  appre- 
ciate the  fact  that,  if  the  world  were  ready  to  listen  to  them 
all,  the  result  would  simply  be  universal  chaos.  The  world 
is  right  not  to  listen  too  readily,  and  it  is  not  strange  if 
now  and  then  a  man  questions  seriously  whether  it  is  safe 
for  him  to  go  alone  against  the  witness  of  the  ages.  Cardi- 
nal Newman  somewhere  in  his  famous  book  —  I  cannot 
quote  the  words  —  says,  revealing  the  secret  of  his  own 
movement  in  this  direction,  that  at  last  he  has  come  to 
a  position  where  he  feels  safe.  Undoubtedly,  it  was  the 
testimony  of  the  ages  that  convinced  him  against  his  own 
reason  that  the  proper  thing  for  him  to  do  was  to  turn  back 
from  the  sunlight  and  walk  towards  the  older  shadow. 

Then  there  is  one  more  reason  on  which  I.  must  touch 
lightly.  I  do  not  want  to  lay  much  emphasis  on  it,  though  I 
have  no  doubt  that  it  has  weight  with  many.  I  do  not  want 
to  emphasize  it,  because  it  is  so  unworthy  that  I  do  not  like 
to  believe  that  any  large  number  of  persons  are  influenced 
by  it.  This  thing  is  self-interest.  Take  a  man  who  belongs 
to  the  Established  Church  of  England,  and  what  does  it 
mean  ?  It  means  millions  of  money ;  it  means  social  re- 
spectability j  it  means  heirship  of  the  past ;  it  means  the 
prestige  of  antiquity;  it  means  an  opportunity  for  rising 
through  the  various  grades  to  a  position  next  to  royalty 
itself.  It  means  all  these  things  in  possibility.  Think  what 
that  must  be  even  as  an  unconscious  bribe,  how  it  must 
weigh  with  a  man  who  is  doubting,  who  is  questioning  as  to 
which  way  lies  the  truth. 

I  had  a  curious  illustration  of  this  idea,  with  a  touch  of  the 
ludicrous  connected  with  it,  some  years  ago.  A  minister  out 
West  was  talking  about  some  questions  of  theology  that  were 
in  the  air,  and  he  expressed  himself  as  immensely  interested ; 


126  Signs  of  the   Times 

and  at  last  he  said  that  he  had  no  doubt  that  the  new  ideas 
were  true,  that  he  was  convinced,  and  it  seemed  as  though 
here  was  a  very  hopeful  convert  to  the  new  ideas  in  the 
world.  At  last,  he  sat  back  in  his  chair,  and  said,  "  No,  I 
must  reconsider ;  for,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  all  my  sermons  — 
and  I  have  all  the  work  of  years  —  have  been  written  on  the 
supposition  that  the  other  theory  is  true,  and  I  cannot  afford 
to  throw  away  the  work  of  a  life  to  follow  these  new  ideas." 
This  simply  as  an  illustration  in  one  direction.  These  dif- 
ferent motives  that  come  in  must  have  weight  in  the  scales 
of  the  man's  intellect,  and  help  to  bear  down  the  balance  on 
the  wrong  side. 

Now,  at  the  last,  I  wish  to  turn  back  again  to  the  hint 
with  which  I  began,  and  to  call  your  attention  to  the  signifi- 
cance of  these  movements  in  the  direction  of  religious  re- 
action. 

What  do  they  mean  ?  They  mean  that  the  world  is  mov- 
ing, that  the  current  is  setting  strong  towards  the  future  ;  and 
the  power  of  the  reaction,  the  force  of  the  eddying  tide,  is  a 
fair  indication  of  the  force  and  sweep  of  the  onward  move- 
ment. By  as  much,  then,  as  you  see  these  tendencies  that 
indicate  religious  reaction,  by  so  much  you  may  be  sure  that 
religious  change  is  in  the  air,  and  that  the  old  is  passing 
away. 

We  should  not,  then,  be  discouraged  if  it  seems  to  go 
slowly,  if  it  does  not  come  through  channels  where  we  ex- 
pect it  to  come.  Still,  let  us  be  sure  that  it  is  coming,  and 
that  anything  which  is  true  has  God  back  of  it  as  the  great 
force  that  is  pushing  it  onward,  and  that,  however  slowly  it 
may  come,  we  need  not  be  impatient,  we  need  not  fret.  We 
should  earnestly  do  our  duty,  standing  in  the  place  assigned 
us,  believing  that  the  right  must  win. 


Religious  Reaction  127 

"  Say  not,  the  struggle  nought  availeth, 
The  labor  and  the  wounds  are  vain, 
The  enemy  faints  not,  nor  faileth, 
And  as  things  have  been  they  remain. 

u  If  hopes  were  dupes,  fears  may  be  liars ; 
It  may  be,  in  yon  smoke  concealed, 
Your  comrades  chase  e'en  now  the  fliers, 
And,  but  for  you,  possess  the  field. 

"  For  while  the  tired  waves,  vainly  breaking, 
Seem  here  no  painful  inch  to  gain, 
Far  back,  through  creeks  and  inlets  making, 
Comes,  silent,  flooding  in  the  main. 

"  And  not  by  eastern  windows  only, 

When  daylight  comes,  comes  in  the  light 
In  front,  the  sun  climbs  slow,  how  slowly, 
But  westward,  look,  the  land  is  bright." 


MIND  CURE. 


That  general  movement  which,  under  the  name  of  Chris- 
tian Science,  metaphysics,  faith  cure,  prayer  cure,  or  what- 
ever it  may  be  called,  is  attracting  so  large  an  amount  of 
attention,  is  certainly  one  of  the  marked  signs  of  the  times. 

If  any  one  should  question  as  to  whether  it  is  a  fitting  and 
appropriate  theme  for  a  Sunday  morning  sermon,  I  think 
he  need  only  consider  two  facts.  In  the  first  place,  this  is 
not  in  the  minds  of  many  of  its  believers  merely  a  method 
of  curing  the  body :  it  is  a  method  also  for  curing  the  sin  and 
evil  of  the  soul,  so  that  it  takes  on  the  form  of  a  religion  to 
those  who  hold  these  features  of  the  belief. 

On  the  other  hand,  whether  we  agree  with  them  in  this 
thought  or  not,  we  do  know  that  the  physical  condition, 
health  or  disease,  does  itself  stand  in  most  intimate  relation 
not  only  to  physical  comfort,  but  to  mental,  to  moral,  and  to 
spiritual  states.  If  I  could  make  all  the  world  well,  I  should 
abolish  at  one  stroke  not  only  pain,  but  most  of  the  vice  and 
the  crime  of  the  world  besides.  So,  when  we  discuss  ques- 
tions bearing  upon  the  cure  of  even  physical  evils,  we  are 
dealing  with  those  things  that  are  interblended  with  all  the 
problems  of  the  moral  and  spiritual  life. 

I  do  not  feel  certain  this  morning  of  more  than  one  thing; 
and  that  is  that  in  my  treatment  I  shall  thoroughly  please 
very  few  people.  I  shall  not  please  the  extreme  thinkers, 
probably,  on  either  side.     Whether  I  shall  even  succeed  in 


Mind  Cure  129 

pleasing  myself  is  an  open  question.  But  I  shall  try  to  deal 
with  the  matter  as  fairly,  as  simply,  as  briefly  as  I  can,  as 
it  seems  to  me  related  to  the  deep-lying  principles  of  human 
nature  as  they  have  been  discovered  by  human  experience. 

The  movement  started  in  its  modern  form  in  the  year  1866, 
in  Lynn.  Mrs.  Eddy  claimed  to  have  discovered  the  prin- 
ciple, although  there  were  those  who  had  written,  thought, 
published,  on  the  subject  before.*  She  has  set  forth  her 
theories  and  the  claims  which  she  has  made  on  behalf  of 
their  practical  working  in  many  books  and  pamphlets  which 
are  open  to  the  reading  of  all.  Perhaps  some  of  these  are 
familiar  to  most  of  you.  It  is  a  distinctively  idealist  move- 
ment. The  foremost  advocates  of  the  principle  date  it  back 
even  to  the  time  of  Plato,  and  his  assertion  that  the  real 
world  was  the  world  of  ideas,  and  that  that  which  we  see,  the 
phenomenal  world,  is  only  a  sort  of  shadow  or  reflection  of 
that.  One  of  the  prominent  writers  on  the  subject,  and  one 
of  the  most  sensible,  it  seems  to  me,  is  Dr.  W.  F.  Evans, 
author  of  "The  Divine  Law  of  Cure."  I  wish  to  read  you 
just  a  word  as  setting  forth  what  he  regards  as  the  basic 
principle  of  his  teaching :  — 

"  The  present  volume  is  an  attempt  to  construct  a  theo- 
retical and  practical  system  of  phrenopathy,  or  mental  cure, 
on  the  basis  of  the  idealistic  philosophy  of  Berkeley,  Fichte, 
Schelling,  and  Hegel.  Its  fundamental  doctrine  is  that  to 
think  and  to  exist  are  one  and  the  same,  and  that  every  dis- 
ease is  the  translation  into  a  bodily  expression  of  a  fixed  idea 
of  the  mind  and  a  morbid  way  of  thinking.  If  by  any  thera- 
peutic device  you  remove  the  morbid  idea,  which  is  the  spir- 
itual image  after  the  likeness  of  which  the  body  is  formed, 
you  cure  the  malady." 

You  see  very  plainly,  then,  the  nature  of  the  claims  that 

*  It  seems  probable  that  she  borrowed  it  all  from  Dr.  P.  P.  Quimby,  of  Belfast,  Me. 


130  Signs  of  the  Times  • 

are  made.  These,  in  the  light  of  some  of  the  claims  put 
forth  by  Mrs.  Eddy,  seem  very  calm  and  wise. 

I  wish  to  outline  for  you,  briefly,  the  theory  of  the  uni- 
verse as  held  by  the  author,  teacher,  and  apostle  of  what 
is  called  Christian  Science.  Christian  Science,  by  the  way, 
seems  to  me  a  curious  misnomer;  for,  after  all  the  study 
that  I  have  been  able  to  give  to  it,  I  can  find  in  it  neither 
science  nor  Christianity. 

She  claims  that  mind  is  the  only  real  thing,  and  that  there 
is  only  one  mind,  which  is  God.  All  this  external  world,  in- 
cluding our  bodies,  are  only  thoughts,  beliefs,  shadows, 
hardly  more  real  than  the  fancies  of  a  dream.  This  one  per- 
fect mind,  of  course,  can  never  be  sick.  Sickness,  then,  is 
only  a  belief,  a  fancy,  of  what  she  calls  mortal  mind ;  for 
the  immortal,  the  one  great  mind,  of  course,  is  never  de- 
luded. But  these  limited  mortal  minds  dream  or  fancy  the 
existence  of  disease  and  pain.  They  are  not  real ;  and  if 
you  can  persuade  people  that  they  are  not  real,  that  they 
are  only  fancies,  then  they  quickly  cease  the  kind  of  exist- 
ence which  might  be  asserted  of  them  before,  and  pass  away 
like  shadows  when  the  sun  is  up.  Mrs.  Eddy  claims  that  in 
accordance  with  this  she  cures  all  kinds  and  classes  of  dis- 
eases. I  think  she  carries  the  matter  so  far  as  to  say  that 
death  itself  is  only  a  blunder  that  need  not  exist.  When 
considering  a  theory  of  the  universe  like  this,  I  feel  like  quot- 
ing a  couplet  from  Byron  that  he  wrote  as  a  satire  on  the 
extreme  idealism  of  Bishop  Berkeley :  — 

"  When  Bishop  Berkeley  says  there  is  no  matter, 
It  is  no  matter  what  he  says." 

So,  if  we  had  only  this  philosophy  of  Mrs.  Eddy's  to  deal 
with,  it  would  really  not  be  worth  while  talking  about  on  the 
part  of  sane  or  rational  people.     But  we  must  remember  one 


Mind  Cure  131 

thing.  When  you  have  demolished  a  philosophy,  a  theory, 
you  have  not  thereby  demolished  facts,  if  facts  there  are 
which  are  connected  with  that  theory.  A  farmer,  for  ex- 
ample, may,  during  a  certain  season,  raise  a  very  large  and 
fine  crop  of  potatoes ;  but  if  you  ask  him  for  his  theory  of 
sunshine,  and  of  the  laws  of  growth  by  which  he  has  pro- 
duced these  results,  his  answer  might  be  the  most  arrant 
nonsense ;  but  the  crop  is  there.  So  any  man  may  produce 
a  definite  and  distinct  result  and  yet  give  you  a  very  foolish 
account  as  to  how  it  was  done.  We  must,  then,  separate 
certain  facts  that  are  palpably  undeniable  from  the  foolish- 
ness of  the  theories  which  have  been  connected  with  them. 

It  would  not  be  fair  to  the  representatives  of  mind  cure  to 
leave  this  description  of  the  beliefs  of  Mrs.  Eddy  as  an 
accurate  representation  of  them.  During  the  last  week  I 
had  a  long  and  careful  conversation,  with  this  sermon  in  view, 
with  one  of  the  best  and  most  rational  representatives  of  the 
mind  cure ;  and  I  assure  you  that  the  conversation  was  in 
almost  every  respect  extremely  satisfactory.  She  repudiates 
entirely  these  foolish  and  fanciful  notions  as  to  there  being 
no  such  thing  as  matter,  as  to  there  being  no  such  thing  as 
disease  or  pain.  She  freely  and  frankly  admits  the  ex- 
istence of  all  these ;  and  yet  she  makes  the  magnificent 
claim  that,  though  these  exist,  mind  is  king, —  king  ever  of 
the  body,  king  of  these  physical  conditions,  above  all  health 
and  all  disease,  and  that  the  mind  has  power  to  cut  off  the 
supply  of  these  morbid  conditions,  and  to  rally  and  call  back 
the  healthful  forces  of  the  system,  and  so  dominate  and  rule 
all  this  kingdom  of  the  physical.  This  I  say  without  indors- 
ing or  contradicting  the  claim  that  she  makes. 

I  wish  now,  after  having  set  forth  thus  simply  the  claims 
of  some  persons  representing  this  modern  movement,  to  rec- 
ognize   a  few  facts.     I  have  no  sort  of  question    that   the 


132  Signs  of  the  Times 

followers  of  Mrs.  Eddy  have  "  cured  "  large  numbers  of  dis- 
eases, that  Mrs.  Eddy  may  herself  have  cured  them.  I 
have  no  sort  of  question  that  diseases  have  been  cured  by 
the  believers  in  faith  cure,  in  prayer  cure,  in  every  different 
phase  of  this  theory  that  you  can  imagine.  But  we  cannot 
stop  here.  We  must  recognize  that  cures  have  been  effected 
by  the  agency  apparently  of  all  sorts  of  things.  You  are 
aware  that  for  ages  it  was  believed  that  the  touch  of  a  king 
or  queen  of  England  had  power  to  cure  scrofulous  disease, 
so  that  scrofula  was  called  the  King's  Evil.  I  have  no  sort 
of  doubt  that  under  certain  circumstances  real  cures  have 
been  effected  by  the  touch  of  a  king.  I  have  no  sort  of 
question  that  cures  recognized  by  his  followers  as  miracu- 
lous, recognized  by  us  as  perfectly  natural,  were  made  by 
Joseph  Smith,  the  Mormon  Prophet.  There  are  perfectly 
authentic  cases  on  record  of  his  having  wrought  most  won- 
derful results  by  his  touch  or  by  prayer  over  those  who  were 
sick.  When  I  was  in  California,  a  man  visited  the  place 
where  I  was  living,  who  claimed  to  be  able  to  cure  all  dis- 
ease by  the  laying  on  of  hands.  I  know  that  people  did 
go  to  him  on  their  crutches,  and  came  away  with  their 
crutches  under  their  arms  or  over  their  shoulders.  I  have 
no  question  as  to  facts   like   these. 

Not  only  that :  miracles  such  as  are  reported  from  the  Mid- 
dle Ages  are  being  wrought  to-day  under  the  power  of  faith 
by  those  who  are  devout  believers  in  the  different  religious 
systems  of  the  world.  Many  and  many  a  person  has  been 
cured  by  the  use  of  the  water  of  Lourdes.  There  is  one 
authentic  case  on  record  where  a  devout  believer  came  to 
a  regular  practising  physician,  who  had  recently  received  a 
little  phial  of  water  from  the  fountain  of  Lourdes,  that  had 
been  brought  to  him  by  a  friend,  as  a  curiosity.  This  woman 
came  to  the  physician  suffering  from  a  serious  malady,  as 


Mind  Cure  133 

she  supposed ;  and  she  said,  If  I  were  only  able  to  go  to 
Lourdes,  I  feel  sure  that  my  disease  might  be  taken  away, 
that  the  blessed  Virgin  would  hear  my  prayers.  The  doctor 
thought  he  would  try  an  experiment,  and  he  told  her  that  he 
had  some  water  from  Lourdes,  and  he  would  let  her  try  it, 
and  very  likely  it  would  produce  the  result  that  she  ex- 
pected. But  he  could  not  find  the  bottle ;  and,  not  wishing 
to  disappoint  her,  he  took  another  phial  and  filled  it  with 
water  from  the  faucet,  labelled  it,  and  gave  it  to  her.  And 
within  a  week  she  was  well,  believing  that  it  was  by  the 
favor  of  the  Virgin  that  the  wonderful  result  had  been 
brought  about. 

There  have  been  cases  where  persons  have  been  cured  by 
the  touch  of  sacred  relics;  and,  in  some  instances,  it  has 
been  found  —  after  the  result  had  been  reached  —  that  the 
real  relics  had  been  lost,  and  replaced  by  bones  of  a  much 
lower  degree  of  sacredness. 

There  is  another  instance  that  I  have  in  mind,  and  there 
is  no  sort  of  question  about  it.  A  physician  had  a  patient 
who  was  troubled,  as  he  supposed,  by  a  very  serious  disease 
of  the  throat.  The  physician  inserted  an  instrument  —  I 
believe  some  kind  of  a  thermometer  —  by  which  to  test  the 
temperature  of  the  throat.  He  found  out  that  the  patient 
supposed  that  the  doctor  was  administering  some  sort  of 
treatment.  He  let  the  patient  go  on  with  that  impression ; 
and,  in  a  very  short  time,  he  cured  the  disease  completely 
with  nothing  but  the  thermometer.  These  cases  are  on 
record  by  the  hundred,  and  they  ought  not  to  surprise  or 
astonish  us.  They  are  perfectly  in  line  with  what  we  know 
of  the  power  the  mind  has  over  the  body ;  for  the  real  agent 
of  cure  in  all  these  cases  is  not  the  prayer,  not  the  relic, 
not  the  thermometer,  not  the  water  of  Lourdes,  genuine  or 
spurious,  but  the  mental  power  of  the  patient. 


134  Signs  of  the  Times 

And  who  shall  limit  this  power?  You  are  familiar  with 
its  manifestation  in  a  hundred  different  directions.  A  word 
is  whispered  in  some  one's  ear,  and  the  face  suddenly 
blushes  and  is  suffused  with  red.  What  does  it  mean  ?  It 
means  that  a  thought,  a  feeling,  has  power  to  stimulate  the 
action  of  the  heart,  and  send  the  blood  to  the  cheeks.  An- 
other word  is  whispered,  and  the  cheek  blanches  and  is  pale. 
What  does  that  mean  ?  It  means,  again,  that  a  thought,  a 
feeling,  has  had  the  power  to  send  the  blood  back  towards 
the  centre,  leaving  the  extremities  pale  and  chilled.  A  word 
has  power  to  stretch  one  fainting  at  your  feet,  has  power  to 
rouse  another  who  is  almost  gone,  and  make  him  leap  to  his 
feet  strong  and  thrilling  with  life  again.  What  limit  is  there 
to  this  power  of  the  mind  over  its  kingdom,  the  body  ? 
Whether  it  can  cure  or  not,  we  know  that  it  can  kill. 

I  wish  to  give  you  here  one  or  two  illustrations  not  fanci- 
ful, but  authentic.  They  are  on  the  records  of  the  medical 
experience  of  the  world. 

Some  years  ago,  in  France,  certain  criminals  had  been 
condemned  to  death.  The  physicians  were  allowed  to  try 
some  experiments  with  them,  to  see  the  power  the  mind  had 
over  the  body.  They  took  two  or  three  of  them,  and  told 
them  that  they  had  been  permitted  to  put  them  to  death 
without  pain;  that  they  would  simply  let  them  bleed  to 
death.  They  blindfolded  the  men,  laid  them  on  surgical 
tables,  telling  them  they  would  open  a  vein  in  their  necks. 
Thereupon,  they  simply  pricked  the  skin, —  not  enough  to 
draw  blood, —  and  had  warm  water  so  arranged  that  it  would 
fall  on  their  throats  and  trickle  into  a  basin  prepared  to 
receive  it ;  and  the  men  thought  they  were  bleeding  to 
death,  and  they  actually  died  under  the  operation. 

Another  test  was  of  a  like  kind,  also  on  criminals,  with 
whom   the   physicians  were    allowed   to    experiment.     They 


Mind  Cure  135 

told  the  criminals  that  they  were  going  to  put  them  into 
beds  from  which  certain  cholera  patients  had  been  removed, 
and  that  they  would  probably  take  the  cholera.  They  put 
them  into  perfectly  fresh  beds,  but  warm  and  tumbled,  look- 
ing as  though  some  one  had  just  left  them  ;  and  a  large  pro- 
portion of  the  men  actually  died  with  the  cholera.  These 
are  perfectly  authentic  cases,  illustrating  in  the  most  re- 
markable way  what  this  power  of  the  mind  may  be  in  cer- 
tain instances  when  it  is  exercised  upon  the  body. 

I,  wish  to  give  you  now  a  few  illustrations  in  another 
-direction,  showing  you  what  tremendous  medical  resources 
there  are  here  when  they  are  properly  explored  and  the  laws 
that  govern  them  are  understood. 

I  have  studied  practically  the  working  of  hypnotism  upon 
its  subjects.  Hypnotism  is  the  modern  name  for  what  used 
to  be  called  mesmerism.  It  was  scouted  by  the  old  physi- 
cians, condemned  by  a  scientific  commission  in  France; 
and  yet  it  is  now  recognized  by  every  competent  investigator, 
and  is  being  put  to  medical  use  by  some  of  the  most  intel- 
ligent physicians  of  the  world.  The  point  is  here.  It  is 
supposed  that  the  power  at  work  is  the  mind  of  the  subject, 
and  that  the  operator,  instead  of  exercising  some  marvellous 
control  over  his  subject,  simply  suggests  to  him  certain 
things  after  he  has  put  him  into  this  hypnotic  sleep. 

What  is  the  limit  of  the  power  that  can  be  exercised 
under  this  condition?  It  is  apparently  unlimited.  I  have 
seen  almost  every  physical  sense  perfectly  controlled.  The 
operator  suggests  that  the  subject  cannot  see,  and  he  is 
blind.  He  tells  him  that  the  only  sounds  he  can  hear  are 
his  own  voice  and  the  ticking  of  the  clock;  and  you  may 
shout  into  his  ear,  you  may  make  any  noise  you  please,  and 
he  is  as  insensible  as  a  marble  statue.  I  have  seen  a  person 
sniff   ammonia  with  the  greatest   delight,  because   he   had 


136  Signs  of  the  Times 

been  told  that  it  was  cologne,  without  its  producing  any  of 
the  ordinary  effects  of  ammonia.  I  have  seen  a  person 
holding  a  little  pure  water  in  a  glass,  when  told  it  was  am- 
monia and  compelled  to  smell  it,  have  the  tears  run  down 
his  face, —  the  natural  effect  of  ammonia.  I  have  seen  a 
person,  with  a  little  glass  of  pure  water,  thrown  into  a  per- 
fect ether  sleep  because  he  was  told  that  it  was  ether.  I 
have  seen  a  person  who  was  told  that  his  left  side  was  para- 
lyzed ;  and  I  have  run  a  pin  into  the  back  of  his  hand  till 
the  blood  followed  it,  and  he  took  no  more  notice  of  it 
than  if  I  had  run  it  into  the  cushion  of  his  chair.  The 
moment  after,  when  he  was  told  that  feeling  had  returned, 
he  was  as  sensitive  as  before.  All  of  the  physical  senses 
seem  to  be  under  the  unlimited  control  of  the  mind  under 
certain  circumstances  and  conditions. 

This  has  been  recognized  by  the  scientific  men  of  the 
world.  It  is  being  used  in  France  and  Belgium  and  in 
some  cases  in  this  country  as  one  of  the  mightiest  medical 
forces.  There  are  cases  on  record  of  persons  completely 
cured  of  their  love  of  alcohol  by  it.  They  have  been  put 
into  this  hypnotic  sleep  day  after  day  or  two  or  three  times 
a  week  for  a  time,  and  it  has  been  impressed  on  their  minds 
that  they  were  not  to  like  the  taste  of  alcoholic  drink ;  and 
the  result  of  it  has  been  a  natural  aversion  to  everything  of 
the  kind.  Not  only  this,  but  people  have  been  cured  of 
moral  taints  and  vices  by  this  process. 

I  might  go  on  here  all  the  morning  telling  you  cases  of 
cures  that  I  have  known.  I  must  hint  one  or  two  to  show 
you  that  the  theory,  whether  it  be  mind  cure,  Christian  Sci- 
ence, faith  cure,  belief  in  the  pope  or  Joe  Smith,  has  appar- 
ently nothing  to  do  with  it.  It  only  means  that  you  shall 
believe  in  the  possibility  of  it, —  believe  that  the  thing  is 
going  to  be  done.     This  seems  to  be  the  one  grand  requisite. 


Mind  Cure  137 

Or,  in  some  cases,  there  may  be  no  belief  about  it  at  all,  but 
only  some  fresh  impulse,  something  that  shall  rouse  the  life 
force  into  renewed  action. 

One  of  the  leading  physicians  of  this  city  told  me  in  con- 
versation one  day  that  his  life  was  saved  by  his  being  made 
terribly  angry.  He  was  a  surgeon  in  the  army  ;  and  he  had 
typhoid  fever,  and  had  passed  the  crisis  and  was  sinking 
gradually  away.  In  a  few  hours  he  would  undoubtedly  have 
died.  There  was  a  surgeon  of  a  neighboring  regiment,  whom 
he  very  much  disliked,  who  came  walking  through  the  ward, 
making  supercilious  remarks,  till  he  stood  by  the  cot  on 
which  the  sick  doctor  lay ;  and  in  a  very  flippant  fashion  he 
said  that  probably  it  would  all  be  over  with  him  very  soon. 
This  sort  of  comment,  by  this  sort  of  a  man,  roused  his 
whole  nature,  till  he  rose  up  with  what  strength  he  had,  and 
in  no  very  polite  language  told  him  that  he  would  live  to 
see  the  grass  green  over  his  grave  yet.  It  only  needed  this 
impulse  for  the  life  force  to  rally;  and  from  that  moment 
he  began  to  recover,  and  is  as  strong  as  any  man  in  the 
city  to-day.  This  means  simply  that  there  needs  something 
to  thrill  the  life  forces  to  renewed  activity. 

I  knew  a  case  when  I  was  a  boy,  in  my  old  home,  of  a 
woman  bed-ridden  for  eight  years.  A  man  fell  in  love  with 
her,  and  induced  her  to  be  married.  She  got  up  and  went 
to  housekeeping,  had  a  large  family,  and  was  well  for  many 
years. 

I  know  of  a  man  who  had  not  walked  for  years  who  was 
carried  abroad  in  a  wheeled  chair,  to  see  what  travel  could 
do  for  him.  He  had  on  one  occasion  been  taken  on  board 
one  of  the  steamers  on  one  of  the  Swiss  lakes,  and  left  by 
his  attendant.  As  he  was  sitting  there,  a  cry  of  fire  was 
raised.  He  leaped  from  his  chair  and  rushed  on  shore, 
forgetting  that  he  was  lame  under  this  impulse  to  escape 
from  danger. 


138  Signs  of  the  Times 

What  does  this  mean  ?  It  means  that  it  is  the  mind  of  the 
person  himself  that  is  chiefly  concerned,  and  that  it  only 
needs,  no  matter  what  the  influence  may  be,  some  power  to 
give  this  person  confidence,  some  power  to  rouse  the  life  force, 
some  power  to  make  one  feel  that  he  can,  and  then  the  slug- 
gish material  forces  obey  the  mind  that  is  king. 

Now,  what  is  to  be  the  upshot  of  this  movement  ?  I  be- 
lieve that,  as  the  years  go  by,  the  extravagant,  extreme 
claims  on  the  part  of  those  who  advocate  mind  cure  will  be 
gradually  outgrown.  And  I  believe  this  also :  that  the  real 
power  which  is  here  is  to  be  recognized  hereafter  more  and 
more,  that  it  is  to  be  recognized  by  the  regular  practitioner, 
that  it  is  to  become  a  part  of  the  scientific  treatment  of  dis- 
ease. Every  one  who  studies  the  matter  knows  that  the 
wisest  and  best  doctors  are  using  less  and  less  medicine 
every  year, —  medicine  in  the  old  sense  of  drugs.  Doctor 
Oliver  Wendell  Holmes  said  —  I  can  repeat  it  without  any 
danger  of  hurting  the  drug  business,  because,  whether  true 
or  not,  the  world  will  go  on  after  about  the  same  fashion  for 
some  time  to  come  —  that,  if  all  the  drugs  were  cast  into  the 
sea,  the  probable  result  would  be  that  it  would  be  so  much 
the  better  for  men,  and  so  much  the  worse  for  the  fishes. 

This  is,  undoubtedly,  an  extreme  statement,  made  for 
effect.  But,  as  indicating  the  tendency  of  the  regular  prac- 
tice, I  would  like  to  tell  you  that  some  years  ago  I  was  the 
guest  of  the  Massachusetts  Medical  Society  at  its  annual 
dinner  in  Music  Hall.  I  sat  at  the  left  hand  of  Surgeon- 
General  Dale,  a  familiar  name  in  Massachusetts  and  in  other 
parts  of  the  country.  In  the  course  of  conversation,  he  said : 
The  first,  the  principal  thing  is  that  you  shall  have  perfect 
faith  in  your  physician.  Then,  if  he  doesn't  give  you  too 
much  medicine,  you  will  be  likely  to  get  along  all  right. 
Every  physician  knows  that  his  case  is  half  won  if  he  can 


Mind  Cure  139 

carry  faith  into  the  homes  of  his  patients.  And  the  one 
thing  he  dreads  more  than  anything  else  is  gloomy,  de- 
spondent, discouraging  surroundings  on  the  part  of  nurses 
and  attendants. 

When  some  morbid  condition  is  set  up  in  the  system,  it 
becomes  a  battle  between  the  natural  force  of  health  and 
this  morbid  force  of  disease ;  and  if  the  physical  condi- 
tion is  adequate  to  it,  in  almost  all  cases,  whether  you  have  a 
physician  or  do  not  have  one,  the  life  force  —  that  is,  the 
majority  force  —  in  the  system  will  prevail,  and  the  patient 
will  get  well. 

This  is  nothing  against  physicians.  If  I  were  ill,  I  should 
send  for  a  physician  the  very  first  thing  possible,  as  I  would 
turn  my  watch  over  to  the  watchmaker  if  it  needed  repairs. 
Whether  he  give  me  medicine  or  not,  if  he  is  a  wise  man 
he  will  know  what  the  difficulty  is,  and  will  give  me,  perhaps, 
what  is  better  than  medicine, —  advice.  It  is  the  fault  of  the 
people  if  they  are  drugged.  Ninety-nine  times  in  a  hundred, 
if  you  should  call  in  a  wise  physician,  if  he  were  to  give  you 
only  advice,  though  that  were  all  you  needed,  you  would  not 
take  it :  you  would  send  for  another  physician,  that  he  might 
give  you  drugs.  I  have  known  any  number  of  physicians 
who  have  given  liniment,  when  they  said  the  only  thing  the 
patient  needed  was  friction  ;  but  they  knew  the  patient  would 
not  rub  the  part  unless  something  were  given  to  rub  in.  I 
have  heard  a  physician  say  that  he  gave  pills  that  had  noth- 
ing in  them  relating  to  the  disease,  because  he  wanted  the 
person  to  have  confidence  that  he  was  doing  something  for 
him,  otherwise  he  would  send  for  some  other  physician. 

As  fast  as  the  people  become  wise  enough  to  co-operate 
with  the  physician,  they  will  come  to  recognize  more  and 
more  these  divine  laws  of  cure,  and  will  help  on  the  better 
days  when  there  shall  be  less  of  disease,  because  there  is 


140  Signs  of  the   Times 

less  of  morbid  mental  condition  out  of  which  so  large  a  part 
of  the  disease  of  the  world  has  sprung. 

I  wish  now  to  close  by  hinting  two  or  three  points  briefly, 
as  indicating  what  this  sign  of  the  times  signifies. 

In  the  first  place,  it  means  the  growing  belief  of  thousands 
of  people  that  mind  is  really  king.  It  means  a  tremendous, 
world-wide  reaction  against  the  old  materialism.  It  has 
some  of  the  violence,  some  of  the  extravagance  of  reaction, 
and  no  wonder.  We  have  been  told  by  wise  men  for  a  good 
many  years  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  world  but  matter, 
and  that  the  soul  was  merely  the  product  of  matter,  and  its 
plaything.  What  wonder  that  the  soul  should  assert  itself 
at  last,  even  to  the  point  of  declaring  that  there  was  nothing 
else  in  existence  but  soul,  and  that  this  boastful  matter  was 
only  the  shadow  and  the  plaything  of  the  mind  ?  It  means  a 
reaction,  and  I  believe  a  healthy  reaction,  against  the  ex- 
tremes of  the  old  materialism. 

For  consider  how  the  mind,  how  thought,  has  proved  itself 
king  of  this  old  planet.  Picture  to  yourself  this  world  two 
hundred  thousand  years  ago,  and  then  picture  it  to-day ;  and 
what  is  the  difference  ?  Only  the  difference  wrought  by 
thinking;  that  is,  the  power  of  mind  to  sculpture  and  re- 
create the  world.  And  the  mind  has  no  less  power  over 
this  physical  system  of  ours  that  we  call  the  body.  You 
know  perfectly  well,  you  recognize  it  in  all  experience,  that 
the  mind  sculptures  the  face.  After  years  have  gone  by,  you 
say  that  a  man  has  a  wolfish,  a  foxy,  or  a  bearish  look ;  that 
is,  this  or  that  quality  is  sculptured  on  his  face.  What  sculpt- 
ured it  there?  Thoughts  and  feelings.  It  is  merely  the 
mind  manifesting  itself  on  the  countenance  ;  and  the  mind, 
I  believe,  has  power  not  only  on  the  face,  but  from  head 
to  foot  to  mould  and  shape  our  physical  condition. 

And  here  is  the  point  we  must  never  forget:    the  mind 


Mind  Cure  141 

is  king,  but  mind  has  a  kingdom.  If  you  are  to  destroy 
the  real  existence  of  the  world  and  body  and  of  matter  of 
every  kind,  then  mind  is  alone  in  space  in  the  midst  of  a 
dream,  surrounded  by  nothing  but  flitting  shadows  and 
fancies.  But  mind  is  mighty  over  real  things, —  over  the 
real  earth  and  the  real  body. 

And  we  must  not  forget  that  all  that  the  mind  has  done  in 
reshaping  this  old  earth  of  ours  has  been  done  in  accord- 
ance with  the  divine  laws.  Then  recognize  this  force  as 
real ;  but  recognize  the  laws  as  real.  All  has  been  accom- 
plished in  accordance  with  facts,  with  laws,  and  by  obedi- 
ence to  laws ;  that  is,  obedience  to  God.  And  all  that  can 
be  done  by  the  mind  in  curing,  in  lifting,  in  reconstructing, 
in  saving  the  body,  must  be  done  by  recognizing  the  real 
facts  and  forces  of  this  physical  system  of  ours,  and  by 
studying  them  even  more  attentively.  Mrs.  Eddy  would  dis- 
countenance the  whole  business  of  even  raising  the  question 
as  to  whether  you  were  sick  or  what  is  the  matter  with  you. 
But,  if  the  mind  is  to  have  power  over  the  body  to  heal 
and  save  it,  we  must  recognize  the  reality  of  its  forces,  dis- 
cover the  laws  of  physical  action  in  the  physical  frame,  and 
must  achieve  these  grand  results  by  obeying  carefully  these 
laws.  But  I  believe  that  the  mind  has  power  such  as  we  are 
only  beginning  to  dream  of  as  yet.  And  by  and  by,  when 
the  soul,  linked  with  God  in  love  to  him,  in  obedience  to 
him,  shall  have  asserted  itself  in  fitting  and  blessed  results, 
then  that  day  shall  come  when  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth 
shall  no  more  say,  I  am  sick,  and  there  shall  be  no  more 
pain,  because  the  former  things  are  passed  away. 


SPIRITUALISM. 


This  is  Easter  morning.  The  story  has  come  down  to 
us  from  the  past  that  eighteen  hundred  and  fifty-six  years 
ago,  at  about  the  rising  of  the  sun,  certain  of  the  loving 
friends  of  Jesus  sought  the  tomb  where  they  had  laid  him, 
and  found  it  empty.  And  I  suppose  that  the  vast  majority 
of  people  in  Christendom,  not  having  studied  the  subject 
very  widely,  hold  the  opinion  that  that  was  the  first  Easter 
morning  of  the  world;  that  Easter  is  Christian,  and  only 
Christian,  in  origin  and  significance.  I  have  had  the  ques- 
tion asked  me  a  great  many  times  as  to  why,  not  believing  in 
the  physical  resurrection  of  Jesus,  I  celebrate  Easter  at  all. 
The  question  betrays  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  the  Easter 
day  and  the  Easter  hope  are  older  than  Christianity,  older 
perhaps  than  any  scripture,  older  than  any  organized  religion 
of  the  world.     For  this  hope  that 

"  Life  is  ever  Lord  of  Death, 
And  Love  can  never  lose  its  own," 

is  older  than  any  religion.  It  is  a  flower  born  of  human 
love,  and  watered  by  the  tears  that  have  been  shed  on  the 
white  faces  of  the  dead. 

Easter,  then,  is  human,  a  human  hope ;  and  all  the  chil- 
dren of  the  one  Father  have  an  equal  right  to  whatever  sun- 
shine and  consolation  may  gather  about  it. 

A  belief  that  has  come  to  be  practically  a  religion  to  mill- 
ions of  people  in  the  most  civilized  countries  of  the  world 


Spiritualism  143 

may  rightly  claim  at  least,  whatever  else  may  be  said  about 
it,  to  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  "  Signs  of  the  Times."  And 
this  belief  is  not  held  by  the  superstitious,  by  the  ignorant, 
by  the  vicious,  by  the  socially  reprobated  alone.  Nor  does 
it  find  a  home  among  these.  For  better  or  worse,  it  is 
shared  by  lawyers,  by  doctors,  by  ministers,  by  philosophers, 
by  men  of  science,  by  men  in  every  occupation,  in  every 
rank  of  life.  There  are  believers  among  the  social  outcasts 
of  the  world,  there  are  believers  on  thrones,  there  are  be- 
lievers in  palaces,  believers  among  the  nobility  of  every 
country,  believers  among  diplomats,  those  engaged  in  the 
public  service  of  their  respective  States.  So  that  for  better  or 
worse,  as  I  say,  we  find  this  permeating  all  modern  society, 
in  the  high  places  and  in  the  low.  And  it  seems  to  me  sig- 
nificant of  one  of  two  things.  It  is  either  one  of  the  most 
hopeful  or  one  of  the  most  lamentable  things  in  all  the 
world.  If  it  be  true,  then  the  fact  that  so  many  in  all  walks 
and  ranges  of  life  have  accepted  it  contradicts  neither  the 
brain  nor  the  culture  of  its  adherents.  If  it  be  only  delusion, 
contemptible,  pitiful,  superstition  and  fraud  foisted  upon  so 
many,  then  it  seems  to  me  one  of  the  saddest  commentaries 
on  what  we  dare  to  call  the  civilization  of  the  nineteenth 
century  that  here  at  a  time  when  we  had  dared  to  think  that 
the  world  was  coming  to  be  fairly  intelligent  it  is  overrun, 
fairly  swamped,  with  what  so  many  are  disposed  to  regard 
as  merely  a  survival  of  old  barbaric  superstitions. 

It  seems  to  me,  then,  that  it  is  worthy  of  our  careful,  ear- 
nest, candid  attention.  If  it  is  true,  we  certainly  want  to 
know  it.  If  it  is  false,  we  want  to  know  it,  not  only  for  our 
own  sake,  but  for  the  sake  of  helping  so  many  thousands 
of  people  out  of  a  pitiable  delusion.  Liberals,  at  any  rate, 
at  the  first  blush,  ought  to  be  touched  with  a  little  feeling 
of  sympathy  towards  it ;  for,  whatever  else  it  may  be,  it  has 


144  Signs  of  the  Times 

proved  itself  the  most  remarkable,  the  most  wide-spread, 
the  most  effective  solvent  of  the  old  dogmas  that  the  world 
has  ever  known.  Educated  people,  those  who  have  time  for 
critical  thought  and  study,  can  be  touched  and  influenced  by 
criticism,  by  philosophy,  by  science ;  but  here  is  a  power  that 
has  come  to  work  through  the  affections  as  well  as  through 
the  intellects  of  men,  and  at  whose  touch  the  hideous  and 
horrible  dogmas  of  the  past  have  faded  away,  to  give  place, 
at  least  in  other  respects,  to  what  are  rational  and  humane 
ideas  concerning  our  Father  in  heaven  and  the  destiny  of 
his  children. 

When,  however,  an  earnest,  candid  person  wakes  up  to  the 
fact  that  such  a  thing  as  Spiritualism  exists,  and  proposes  to 
study  it,  the  chances  are,  unless  he  is  more  fortunate  than 
the  ordinary  seeker,  that  he  will  find  himself  face  to  face 
with  that  which  will  repel  him,  will  shock  him,  will  disgust 
him  on  every  hand ;  for,  whether  there  be  anything  true  in  it 
or  not,  there  is  no  sort  of  question  that  there  does  exist  in 
connection  with  it  and  under  cover  of  its  name  an  amount 
of  palpable  and  intentional  fraud  that  is  simply  appalling. 
There  is  no  question  that  there  is  connected  with  it  and 
under  cover  of  its  name  also  a  vast  amount  of  honest 
and  ignorant  self-delusion.  Certain  strange  things  happen, 
and  people  at  once  fly  to  the  spiritualistic  interpretation  of 
them,  although  to  a  more  careful  and  conservative  thinker 
there  may  be  no  necessity  whatever  for  any  such  explana- 
tion. There  is,  then,  this  amount  of  fraud  and  delusion 
which  repels  one  who  proposes  to  investigate  for  himself, 
and  find  out  what  is  true.  Words  of  too  severe  reprobation 
cannot  be  uttered  for  this  side  of  the  movement.  But  it 
ought  to  be  said  in  justice  that  the  honest  and  earnest  be- 
liever deplores  this  state  of  things  as  much  as  anybody,  and 
ought  not  to  be  held  responsible;  but  the  whip  of  public 


Spiritualism  145 

scorn  and  disapprobation  should  be  applied  to  the  multitude 
of  impudent  and  deliberate  cheats,  tricksters,  and  liars,  till 
they  are  whipped  out  of  all  decent  human  society.  There 
are  those  that  trade  like  human  ghouls  in  the  bodies  of  the 
dead.  This  business  seems  to  me  in  all  ways  to  be  respect- 
able compared  with  that  of  trading  in  human  tears,  in 
human  heart-break,  in  the  tenderest  and  highest  hopes  of  the 
human  soul.  I  know  of  nothing  more  utterly  despicable, 
more  utterly  inhuman,  than  this  manifestation  of  a  willing- 
ness to  make  money  out  of  the  sacred  hopes  and  fears  of 
those  who  are  heart-broken  and  desolate. 

There  is  also  connected  with  the  movement,  as  is  charged, 
a  vast  amount  of  immorality  of  every  kind.  I  have  no  sort 
of  question  that  this  charge  is  true.  One  thing,  however, — 
I  will  not  dwell  upon  it, —  ought  to  be  hinted  as  an  explana- 
tion of  it,  as  an  apology  for  this  condition  of  things.  Always 
in  the  history  of  the  world,  when  there  has  been  a  general, 
wide-spread  breaking  up  of  an  old  system  of  thought,  when 
people  are  feeling  about  for  an  attempted  readjustment  with 
the  new  system,  there  has  been  this  loss  of  a  firm  grip  on  the 
deep  realities,  the  ethical  principles  of  human  nature.  Peo- 
ple have  lost  their  old  motives  and  have  not  found  the  new. 
It  was  true  concerning  early  Christianity.  There  has  not 
been  one  single  charge  made  against  Spiritualism  that  was 
not  made  by  pagan  onlookers  and  observers  as  to  young  Chris- 
tianity. It  was  said  that  their  love-feasts  were  only  drunken 
and  dissipated  orgies.  And  Paul  tells  us  himself  that  on  a 
certain  occasion,  in  the  church  of  Corinth,  the  people  were 
drunken  at  the  communion  table ;  so  that  we  must  remember 
that,  though  these  things  are  true,  it  is  not  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  the  world  that  men  have  passed  through  a 
similar  phase  of  experience. 

And  while  people  still  link  themselves  with  the  churches 


146  Signs  of  the  Times 

for  the  sake  of  social  standing  or  financial  gain,  though  they 
do  not  believe  its  doctrines  nor  care  for  its  spiritual  pros- 
perity, even  modern  Christianity  cannot  very  safely  throw 
stones. 

I  wish  now  to  say  that  any  critic  who  proposes  to  con- 
sider any  great  movement  of  human  life  or  thought  is  in  duty 
bound,  as  a  fair  and  honest  man,  to  judge  it  from  its  best 
side,  to  judge  it  at  its  highest. 

Let  us,  then,  consider  the  fact  that,  in  spite  of  all  I  have 
said,  there  is  what  I  may  perhaps  properly  call  a  Higher 
Spiritualism,  a  complete  system  of  thought,  of  life,  of  ethics, 
of  belief  concerning  God  and  man  and  destiny  that  is  clearly 
wrought  out.  There  is  a  vast  literature  that  has  appeared, 
in  the  last  few  years,  setting  forth  belief  in  all  these  phases 
of  opinion ;  and,  if  any  one  wishes  to  know  what  it  means, 
or  what  it  claims  to  stand  for  on  its  higher  side,  he  ought  in 
fairness  to  make  himself  familiar  with  the  best  of  its  litera- 
ture. 

I  propose  to  define  this  higher  Spiritualism,  not  to  give 
you  my  opinion  of  it,  but  to  tell  you  what  it  claims  for  itself, 
what  it  aims  to  be. 

What  is,  then,  the  first  grand  belief  ?  Simply  that  death  is 
not  an  end ;  that  it  is  merely  an  experience,  an  incident  in 
the  onward  and  upward  struggle  and  progress  of  the  individ- 
ual life.  It  claims  to  have  demonstrated  this,  to  hold  it  not 
as  a  hope,  not  as  a  belief,  but  as  knowledge.  It  teaches 
that  inside  these  gross  physical  bodies  there  is  an  ether 
body,  that  has  grown  with  it,  been  shaped  by  it,  adapted 
to  it,  perfect  in  every  part  and  faculty ;  and  that  this  ether 
body  is  disengaged  at  death,  like  a  germ  delivered  from  its 
sheath,  and  that  it  goes  on,  the  soul  taking  this  ether  body 
with  it  as  a  perfect  equipment  in  every  faculty  for  the  fullest 
expression  of  its  higher  and  better  life.     According  to  this 


Spiritualism  147 

teaching,  the  soul  simply  goes  on  with  its  power  to  think,  to 
remember,  to  love  just  as  of  old. 

It  further  teaches  that  this  universe  everywhere  is  under 
the  law  of  cause  and  effect,  and  that  we  begin  life  hereafter 
just  as  we  leave  it  here,  precisely  what  we  have  made  our- 
selves by  our  thoughts,  our  deeds,  our  words  on  earth. 
Therefore,  this  other  life  is  not  peopled  with  ghosts,  with 
ghastly,  thin  and  unreal  beings,  such  as  we  have  imagined 
in  the  past:  they  are  real  folks,  our  fathers,  our  mothers, 
our  neighbors,  our  friends,  just  as  we  have  known  them 
here,  only  released  from  these  lower  physical  conditions,  but 
carrying  with  them  the  same  kind  of  character,  of  thought, 
of  personality  which  they  had  here. 

It  also  teaches  that,  under  certain  peculiar  conditions, 
there  can  now  and  then  be  manifestations  of  the  reality  of 
that  life  to  this  life ;  that  sometimes  there  comes  a  whisper, 
sometimes  a  hand  is  reached  across  the  abyss,  and  that  they 
are  demonstration  of  the  fact  that  those  we  have  loved  and 
that  we  talk  of  as  lost  are  not  lost,  but  are  living  as  we  are 
living. 

This  higher  Spiritualism  is  in  perfect  accord  with  all  the 
best  scientific  teaching  of  the  world.  It  is  in  perfect  accord 
with  the  finest  and  highest  philosophy  of  the  world.  It  is  in 
perfect  accord  with  the  finest  and  highest  moral  principles 
that  have  ever  been  discovered.  So  there  is  nothing  that  we 
know  that  is  contradictory  to  these  claims  of  this  higher  Spir- 
itualism. Therefore,  whether  it  can  demonstrate  itself  as 
true  or  not,  it  is  not  in  contradiction  with  any  known  truth 
that  science  or  philosophy  has  to  offer,  and  is  in  perfect  ac- 
cord with  the  finest  ethical  teaching  and  the  highest  hopes  of 
man.  So  much  must  be  said  in  defence  of  this  claim  of  what 
I  have  called  the  higher  Spiritualism. 

Now,  I  wish  to  offer  a  few  suggestions  of  which  you  will 


148  Signs  of  the  Times 

see  the  force  and  drift.  I  speak  not  now  as  a  Spiritualist. 
I  am  speaking,  or  trying  to,  as  a  perfectly  fair  and  sympa- 
thetic critic  from  the  outside.  These  claimed  facts  which 
Spiritualists  offer  us  as  proof  of  that  which  they  declare  to 
be  true  are  not  new  facts.  What  is  called  modern  Spiritual- 
ism itself  is  less  than  half  a  century  old,  but  these  general 
manifestations  of  a  certain  class  and  kind  of  facts  have  been 
reported  down  from  the  very  dawn  of  human  history.  In 
the  household  of  old  Dr.  Phelps,  of  Connecticut,  father  of 
Professor  Phelps,  of  Andover,  there  were  unquestionably 
certain  manifestations  of  abnormal  power  that  have  never 
yet  found  any  explanation,  unless  indeed  they  can  find  it 
here.  In  the  home  of  the  Wesleys  there  were  similar  man- 
ifestations continued  for  a  long  period.  From  almost  every 
nation,  every  religion,  every  age,  there  come  to  us  these 
stories  of  abnormal,  unusual  occurrences  ;  things  that  usually 
the  people  have  called  miracles,  that  they  were  not  able  to 
explain.  Now  here  is  the  point  that  I  wish  to  emphasize. 
Are  these  stories,  hundreds  of  them,  told  by  the  gravest  and 
most  reliable  writers  and  historians  of  the  world, —  are  they 
true  ?  They  certainly  are  not  conscious  falsehoods.  Do 
they  mean  that  the  people  who  reported  these  things  in  all 
ages  were  so  little  to  be  relied  on  that  they  should  be  con- 
stantly liable  to  this  sort  of  delusion  from  the  beginning  of 
the  world  until  now  ?  I  simply  wish  to  say  this :  if  I  may 
believe  in  the  central  thought  of  modern  Spiritualism,  that 
fact  would  run  a  line  of  light,  a  line  of  sanity,  back  up  the 
ages  through  every  religion,  through  every  nation,  through 
every  tribe,  and  would  give  me  an  added  respect  for  the 
ability  of  the  average  man  to  observe  and  tell  the  truth.  It 
would  explain  a  thousand  things  that  now  are  inexplicable. 
It  would  explain  not  only  the  Bible,  but  the  Scriptures  of 
all  ages,  and  the  writings  of  grave  old  Roman  writers,  like 


Spiritualism  149 

Livy,  and  almost  all  writers  of  ancient  times.  Brush  them 
one  side,  and  put  them  down  with  scorn  to  the  credulity  of 
man,  and  we  must  believe,  what  I  do  not  like  to  believe,  that 
men  have  been  too  credulous  in  all  these  ages.  To  believe 
that  there  was  a  kernel  of  truth  in  their  reports  would  give 
an  added  respect  for  human  nature. 

Here  also  might  be  found  a  rational  explanation  of  the 
ancient  oracles,  and  of  such  claims  as  that  made  by  Soc- 
rates concerning  the  daimott  that  was  his  constant  attendant 
and  teacher. 

Then  what  a  light  it  would  throw  upon  the  whole  Bible ! 
For  the  Bible  looked  at  from  the  stand-point  of  the  rational- 
ist is  nothing  but  a  spiritualistic  book  from  beginning  to 
end.  Its  entire  significance  is  in  its  Spiritualism.  It  is  full 
to  running  over  with  it  from  one  cover  to  the  other.  Must 
we  put  everything  there  down  to  the  wildest  kind  of  delu- 
sion ?  Must  we  not,  unless  there  is  some  ground  for  these 
beliefs  ?  I  would  like  to  believe  something  a  little  more  to 
the  credit  of  these  reporters. 

Let  me  indicate  to  you  one  kind  of  influence  it  would  have 
on  my  thinking.  I  do  not  believe  at  all  in  the  physical  res- 
urrection of  Jesus  of  Nazareth.  On  the  testimony  contained 
in  the  New  Testament,  I  see  little  cause  for  believing  even 
in  his  spiritual  reappearance.  The  testimony  of  the  New 
Testament  concerning  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  if  it  were 
paralleled  by  testimony  in  a  court  of  justice,  would  not  be 
accepted,  for  it  is  simply  the  anonymous  testimony  of  people 
whom  we  cannot  cross-examine  as  to  certain  very  strange 
and  wonderful  things  that  happened  nearly  two  thousand 
years  ago.  One  of  the  strangest  things  to  me  is  to  find  peo- 
ple who  believe  in  these  stories  told  in  the  New  Testament, 
but  who  do  not  believe  the  modern  ones.  For  the  modern 
ones  are  of  precisely  the  same  kind,  and  have  this  advantage 


1 50  Signs  of  the   Times 

over  the  old:  that  they  have  the  living  testimony  of  hun- 
dreds and  thousands  of  credible  men  and  women,  while 
the  old  stories  are  no  more  credible  on  their  own  account 
than  the  modern  ones,  and  have  no  evidence  that  would  be 
allowed  if  it  were  standing  simply  alone. 

In  view  —  and  here  is  what  I  have  in  mind  —  in  view  of 
this,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  believe  in  the  visible  spirit 
appearance  of  any  modern  man  who  has  died,  why  then  it 
would  be  perfectly  easy  and  rational  for  me  to  believe  that 
Paul  saw  Jesus  on  the  way  to  Damascus.  It  would  not  seem 
a  supernatural  fact,  but  a  perfectly  natural  occurrence. 

And  here  let  me  remove  one  common  prejudice.  Spirit- 
ualism makes  no  demand  on  us  that  we  believe  the  super- 
natural. At  most,  it  is  only  a  question  of  words.  A  spiritual 
world,  if  it  exists,  is  as  natural  as  the  physical  world.  All 
the  mightiest  forces  are  invisible,  but  not  therefore  super- 
natural. 

I  want  to  mention  to  you,  also,  a  thought  which  strikes  me 
as  being  of  a  great  deal  of  importance,  as  springing  out  of 
the  doctrine  of  evolution,  as  to  these  modern  wonders;  for 
evolution  reaches  from  the  beginning  to  the  end,  and  there 
is  no  sort  of  reason  to  suppose  that  its  force  is  spent,  but 
every  reason  to  suppose  the  contrary.  Note  one  thing  of 
vast  significance.  The  lowest  forms  of  life,  worms  and 
fishes,  occupy  a  horizontal  position.  They  have  very  little 
development  of  brain,  very  simple  nervous  systems.  The 
force  of  evolution  has  tended  ever  to  lift  from  the  horizontal 
plane  up  through  higher  forms  of  life,  reptile,  bird,  mammal, 
till  you  have  man  perpendicular,  standing  on  his  feet,  with 
immense  development  of  brain  and  nervous  power.  Does 
evolution  stop  there  ?  No,  it  has  left  the  physical,  ages  ago. 
It  is  not  producing  marked  changes  in  the  structure  of  the 
body,  but  it  seizes  on  the  brain  and  the  intellectual  power, 


Spiritualism  151 

and  raises  that.  It  seizes  on  the  moral,  the  ethical  nature  of 
man,  until  to-day,  as  I  have  had  occasion  more  than  once  to 
tell  you,  the  ethical  ideal  is  mightier  than  any  physical  or 
intellectual  force  in  all  the  world.  But  it  did  not  stop  there. 
It  seized  the  spiritual  nature  of  man;  and  now  it  would  seem 
to  me  in  perfect  accord  with  the  scientific  doctrine  of  evo- 
lution to  suppose  that  we  may  reach  still  higher  yet, —  that 
there  is  to  be  a  grand,  a  free,  a  wide-spread  and  general 
development  of  the  spiritual  nature  of  man.  If  so,  then  it 
would  be  in  perfect  accord  with  this  teaching  that  there  should 
have  been  sporadic  and  occasional  manifestations  of  this  in 
the  past  ages  of  the  world,  leading  up  to  the  moment  of  its 
more  general  recognition. 

One  other  point  I  must  notice  and  emphasize  a  little.  It 
seems  to  me  that  a  great  many  people  are  intellectually  con- 
fused as  to  the  choice  they  must  make  between  the  two  great 
theories  of  life.  There  are  people  who  put  aside  any  claims 
to  proof  in  this  direction  or  that  as  bearing  upon  the  spirit- 
ual nature  of  man,  and  yet  cling  to  their  own  belief  in  his 
spiritual  nature  illogically  and  without  any  proof  whatever. 
We  are  presented  with  two  theories,  and  we  cannot  choose  a 
little  of  one  and  a  little  of  the  other.  One  or  the  other  is 
certainly  true.  One  theory  is  the  materialistic.  In  accord- 
ance with  that,  human  life,  any  intelligent  life,  is  merely  a 
passing,  transitory  stage,  of  no  more  permanent  existence 
than  these  blossoms  that  now  surround  me.  Humanity  itself, 
its  brain,  its  heart,  its  life,  its  hope,  its  Jesus,  its  Shakspere, 
its  Buddha,  all  the  great  names  of  the  world,  are  only  curi- 
ous and  strange  manifestations  of  this  material  world,  blos- 
soming as  the  plants  blossom,  fading  as  the  plants  fade.  On 
that  theory, —  think  a  moment  what  it  means, —  the  world, 
all  the  past  of  the  world,  is  a  desert,  darkness,  a  black  abyss, 
just  behind  us — nothing.    All  who  have  ever  lived  have  been 


152  Signs  of  the   Times 

blotted  out,  and  all  that  great  array  of  figures  are  only  fan- 
cies of  a  dream.  And  before  us  what  ?  Night  and  the  dark 
again.  We  live,  we  think,  we  feel  for  a  little  while,  and  that 
is  the  end.  Here  is  this  world  of  ours,  with  just  a  few  gen- 
erations that  are  now  peopling  it,  sailing  through  space,  and 
this  is  all ;  and,  when  one  drops  out,  he  drops  into  everlast- 
ing nothingness.  That  is  one  theory.  It  does  not  com- 
mend itself  to  me,  either  to  my  intellect  or  to  my  heart. 

The  other  theory  is  what  ?  It  is  that  spirit  and  life  are 
first,  supreme  ;  that  spirit  shaped  and  controls  form,  that 
form  only  expresses  spirit.  Why,  I  have  had  a  dozen  bodies 
since  I  was  born  into  this  life.  There  is  nothing  that  I  know 
of  in  any  science  to  make  it  unreasonable  to  believe  that 
after  the  fact  which  we  call  death  I  may  still  go  on  clothed 
with  a  body  as  real  as  is  this.  This  theory  teaches  us  that 
the  universe  is  all  alive.  Young,  the  great  scientist  who 
discovered  what  is  now  the  universally  accepted  theory  of 
light,  who  lived  just  a  little  after  Sir  Isaac  Newton's  time, 
recognized  as  one  of  the  most  acute  and  profound  thinkers 
of  the  world,  put  it  forth  as  a  speculation  merely, —  he  did 
not  claim  anything  more, —  that  for  anything  science  knew 
to  the  contrary  —  we  now  see  hints  that  look  that  way  — 
there  might  be  no  end  of  living,  pulsing,  throbbing  worlds 
all  around  us,  a  spiritual  system  of  which  we  are  the  material 
counterpart. 

At  any  rate,  we  must  choose  between  the  theory  of  ma- 
terialism and  a  spiritualistic  theory.  If  the  spiritualistic 
theory  be  true,  then  death  is  not  the  end.  I  may  hope  to 
find  my  friends  once  more ;  and  it  is  quite  natural  that  the 
spiritual  natures  of  certain  susceptible  ones  of  the  race 
should  become  developed  so  that  they  are  capable  of  re- 
ceiving communications  from  the  other  side  from  those  who 
attempt  to  come  into  such  relations  with  them.     Does  that 


Spiritualism  153 

not  seem  to  you  perfectly  natural  ?  If  there  be  such  a  thing 
as  a  spiritual  world,  if  my  father  is  alive,  if  your  brother, 
sister,  husband,  wife,  is  alive,  and  if  they  are  not  very  far 
away,  would  it  not  be  the  most  natural  thing  in  the  world  for 
them  to  try,  at  any  rate,  to  reach  us  ? 

I  propose  now  to  hint  to  you  a  few  words  as  to  the  proof 
of  these  claims  which  Spiritualists  offer.  One  thing  is  sig- 
nificant, and  is  immensely  to  the  credit  of  this  higher  Spirit- 
ualism. It  does  not  ask  anybody  to  believe  with  his  eyes 
shut.  It  does  not  ask  anybody  to  take  the  statement  of  the 
most  truthful  person  on  the  face  of  the  earth.  It  offers,  or 
claims  to  offer,  no  end  of  facts  as  proved ;  and  it  asks  you  to 
investigate,  and  believe  or  reject  on  the  basis  of  these  claims. 
I  say  it  is  immensely  to  the  credit  of  this  higher  Spiritual- 
ism that  it  should  put  itself  on  this  purely  scientific  basis  as 
being  perfectly  in  accord  with  the  tendencies  and  movement 
of  the  modern  world. 

You  are  familiar  in  a  general  way  with  the  kind  of  facts 
that  are  offered  as  proof.  They  are  spoken  of  lightly,  some- 
times sneered  at.  It  has  been  said,  Even  suppose  a  physical 
body  is  lifted  up  or  moved  by  a  force  that  has  apparently  no 
connection  with  the  muscular  power  of  any  people  present, — 
I  have  heard  this  spoken  of  and  sneered  at  a  thousand 
times, —  suppose  it  is,  what  of  it  ?  One  of  the  most  learned 
men  of  this  country  has  given  this  hint  as  to  what  of  it.  I 
repeat  it  from  him.  He  makes  this  point.  Everything  in 
this  world,  so  far  as  we  know,  if  let  alone,  tends  downward 
under  the  force  of  universal  gravity.  There  is  no  power 
known  in  heaven  or  earth  that  is  capable  of  lifting  even  a 
pin  against  this  force  of  gravity  except  the  power  of  intelli- 
gent will.  If,  therefore,  it  should  happen,  if  it  should  be 
demonstrated,  that  there  is  any  such  force  that  is  capable  of 
doing  this,  here  would  be  the  Rubicon,  the  very  dividing  line 


154  Signs  of  the  Times 

between  materialism  and  spiritualism,  absolute  demonstration 
that  here  is  intelligent  will  at  work.  I  give  you  this  as  quo- 
tation, not  verbally,  but  the  idea,  as  expressing  the  opinion 
of  one  of  the  most  learned  men  in  this  country  as  to  the 
significance  of  such  a  fact,  supposing  it  ever  occurred.  And 
I  say  to  you  frankly,  in  passing,  that  I  am  convinced  that 
such  facts  have  occurred  and  do  occur. 

I  cannot,  at  this  time,  even  hint  at  the  many  proofs  that 
the  Spiritualists  offer.  You  can  find  them  for  yourselves. 
You  may,  however,  be  interested  if  I  give  you  one  or  two 
brief  hints  of  things  which  have  come  under  my  own  obser- 
vation and  which  have  filled  me  with  most  restless  and  eager 
questioning. 

There  has  been  in  the  modern  world  a  manifestation  in 
these  last  few  years  of  certain  strange  powers  on  the  part  of 
mind  as  already  embodied,  such  as  was  not  recognized  or 
given  any  place  in  science  until  the  last  half-century.  As 
I  told  you  last  Sunday,  a  French  scientific  commission  inves- 
tigated hypnotism  and  pronounced  it  all  humbug.  To-day 
there  is  not  a  competent  scientific  man  who  does  not  recog- 
nize its  truth.  There  used  to  be  once  great  incredulity  as 
to  the  existence  of  clairvoyance  and  clairaudience.  To  day, 
I  venture  to  say  there  is  no  person  of  competent  intelligence, 
who  has  investigated  the  matter,  who  does  not  believe  that 
these  powers  exist.  It  was  once  believed  that  there  could 
be  no  such  thing  as  communication  on  the  part  of  one  mind 
with  another,  except  through  the  ordinary  physical  media. 
The  idea  would  have  been  scorned  and  flouted  a  few  years 
ago.  I  venture  here  again  to  say  that  there  is  probably  not 
a  man  of  competent  intelligence,  who  has  given  it  careful  and 
earnest  investigation,  who  does  not  believe  in  telepathy,  or 
mind-reading, —  the  possibility  of  minds  communicating  with 
each  other  without  much  regard  to  space,  providing  the  con- 
ditions and  circumstances  are  favorable. 


Spiritualism  155 

These  do  not  prove  Spiritualism  at  all ;  but  note  this  one 
thing.  It  proves  that  there  has  been  a  tremendous  increase 
and  widening  of  the  recognition  of  the  powers  of  the  human 
mind.  They  prove  what  appears  to  be,  at  least,  a  semi-inde- 
pendence of  the  recognized  physical  faculties  of  communica- 
tion. What  kind  of  mind  is  this  that  can  manifest  itself  to 
another  a  thousand  miles  away  ?  Something  different  from 
the  old  idea  of  mind  that  used  to  be  generally  entertained. 
Phenomena  like  these  have  become  so  familiar  to  me  that 
they  are  no  more  wonderful  now  than  the  telegraph  and 
the  telephone.  I  cannot  explain  the  telegraph  and  the  tele- 
phone, but  I  know  they  are  true.  I  cannot  explain  these 
things,  but  I  know  they  are  true. 

But  one  step  more  I  will  hint.  Something  else  has  oc- 
curred in  my  experience  which  puzzles  me  beyond  all  words 
to  express.  I  have  no  place  for  it  in  any  scientific  theory 
with  which  I  am  acquainted  ;  I  do  not  know  what  to  do  with 
it.  In  the  presence  of  a  personal  friend,  only  two  being  in 
the  room,  I  have  had  communication  made  to  me  of  cer- 
tain things  occurring  at  the  very  instant  in  another  State. 
Where  did  it  come  from  ?  How  ?  I  do  not  know.  I  simply 
know  that  science,  according  to  its  present  development,  has 
nothing  whatever  to  say  to  facts  like  these ;  it  has  no  place 
to  put  them,  and  must  widen  its  theories  before  it  can  ac- 
count for  them.  Of  course,  if  I  were  ready  to  accept  all  the 
claims  put  forth  on  the  behalf  of  modern  Spiritualism,  I 
should  naturally  explain  these  facts  in  the  light  of  that  the- 
ory. I  frankly  say  I  do  not  know  of  any  other  theory  that 
even  promises  an  explanation. 

Perfect  candor  and  fairness  compel  me  to  say  that  some 
of  these  communications  have  about  them  such  traces  of  the 
identity  of  the  "spirits"  claiming  to  communicate  as  fill  me 
with  surprise.     I  have  never  counted  as  evidence  of  "spirit" 


156  Signs  of  the  Times 

activity  anything  a  "  medium  "  might  tell  me  which  I  already 
knew.  I  have  said,  This  may  be  mind-reading.  But,  over 
and  over  again,  until  it  is  commonplace,  I  have  had  thus 
told  me  things  which  it  was  impossible  the  psychic  should 
ever  have  known. 

But  when,  as  on  several  occasions,  I  am  told  things  that 
neither  myself  nor  the  psychic  knew,  ever  did  know,  or  ever 
could  have  known,  so  far  as  I  could  possibly  discover,  then 
I  know  not  what  to  say  unless  I  am  to  suppose  the  presence 
and  activity  of  some  invisible  intelligence.  But,  were  that 
proved,  it  would  still  remain  to  prove  that  this  intelligence 
was  once  embodied  as  man  or  woman. 

Here,  then,  I  rest.  I  am  in  no  hurry.  The  one  thing,  the 
only  thing  that  any  sane  man  can  desire  is  the  truth.  It 
seems  to  me  the  most  fool-hardy  of  all  things  for  any  man  to 
object  to  a  fact.  If  it  is  a  fact,  then  it  is  only  folly  to  object; 
for  if  indeed  it  be  a  fact  it  will  remain  a  fact  after  you  have 
objected  your  life  long.  The  only  sane  search  in  the  world, 
then,  is  for  truth.  I  am  so  anxious  to  find  the  truth  that  I 
cannot  afford  to  make  up  my  mind  too  readily.  I  must 
pause,  I  must  wait.  I  must  not  only  think  certain  things 
probable,  but  I  must  know  they  are  true. 

But  this  much  I  will  say.  It  seems  to  me  due  to  the 
claims  of  this  higher  Spiritualism  to  say  that,  if  I  should 
ever  come  to  accept  the  central  claim  of  Spiritualism,  I  can- 
not see  wherein  it  would  change  my  belief,  scientific,  philo- 
sophic, ethical,  practical,  one  whit.  What  would  it  do  ?  It 
would  simply  place  under  my  feet  a  rock,  demonstrated  to  be 
a  rock,  instead  of  a  hope,  a  trust,  a  great  and  glorious  belief. 

If  this  higher  faith  of  Spiritualism  should  ever  be  univer- 
sally accepted,  what  would  follow  ?  It  would  abolish  death. 
It  would  make  you  know  that  the  loved  are  not  lost,  though 
they  have  gone  before  you.     It  would  make  any  human  life 


Spiritualism  157 

here,  whatever  its  poverty,  disease  or  sorrow,  worth  while, 
because  of  the  grand  possibility  of  the  outlook.  It  would 
give  victory  over  sorrow,  over  heart-break,  over  tears.  It 
would  make  one  master  not  only  of  death,  but  of  life.  It 
would  make  him  feel  sure  that  he  was  building  up,  day  by 
day  here,  the  character  that  he  was  to  carry  with  him  on  to 
that  next  higher  level  of  the  ascent  that  is  never  to  cease, 
but  eternally  to  rise  nearer  and  nearer  to  God. 

I  then  frankly  say  to  you  friends  that,  while  I  am  so  anx- 
ious to  find  the  truth  that  I  wish  to  know  that  the  dust  is  the 
end  of  me  if  it  is,  I  would  certainly  rather  believe  that 
it  is  not.  I  would  rather  believe  that  we  are  forming  the 
beginning  of  associations  here  which  are  to  be  eternal.  I 
would  like  not  only  to  listen  to,  but  to  believe  the  whisper 
that  comes  down  out  of  the  infinite  light :  "  There  shall  be  no 
more  death." 


BREAK-UPS  THAT  MEAN  ADVANCE. 


In  the  first  sermon  of  the  present  series  I  considered  the 
break-up  of  the  old  faith,  stating  some  of  the  reasons  why  it 
can  no  longer  be  intelligently  held.  This  morning  I  propose 
to  consider  another  phase  of  the  question  of  the  breaking-up 
of  the  old ;  namely,  that  which  looks  upon  the  break  as  the 
condition  of  a  larger  and  grander  building.  There  are  de- 
structions which  leave  things  waste  and  desolate.  There  are 
other  destructions  which  are  simply  preparations  for  some- 
thing finer  than  that  which  has  been  destroyed. 

You  are  familiar  with  the  charge  so  commonly  made 
against  Unitarians,  against  liberals  of  every  order  :  that  their 
work  is  entirely  negative,  that  they  tear  down  and  do  not 
build  up ;  that  they  take  away,  but  do  not  give  anything 
in  place  of  that  which  they  take  away.  I  propose  this  morn- 
ing to  consider  whether  the  experiences  through  which  this 
world  is  passing  to-day  have  about  them  anything  that  ought 
to  take  away  our  heart  or  courage  or  hope,  or  whether  they 
be  not  rather  something  to  inspire,  to  lift  us  up,  to  thrill  us 
with  a  grander  courage,  to  take  us  by  the  hand  and  lead  us 
to  the  performance  of  a  larger  duty. 

If  you  were  to  drive  through  the  country  some  of  these 
warm  days  in  spring,  you  would  see  on  every  hand  beautiful 
fields,  where  the  fresh,  new  grass  is  growing,  where  buds  are 
unfolding  into  lovely  flowers,  and  where  everything  seems 
thrilling  and  pulsing  with  glad  life.     But  here  and  there  you 


UNIVERSITY 

Break-ups  that  mean  A< 

would  see  a  process  that  seems  like  a  destruction  of  all  this 
fresh,  new  life  of  the  year.  The  farmer  is  at  work  in  his 
fields ;  and  the  ploughshare  that  he  is  driving  comes  tearing 
along  in  the  midst  of  the  roots  of  the  grasses  and  flowers, 
and  overturning,  with  its  destructive  power,  all  this  fresh  life 
and  beauty.  But,  if  you  can  look  at  these  things  with  a 
poet's  eye,  as  did  Burns,  poet  and  farmer  both,  you  will 
sympathize  with  the  stanza  in  which  he  addresses  a  mouse 
whose  nest,  or  "  housie,"  is  overthrown  :  — 

"  Thy  wee  bit  housie,  too,  in  ruin  I 
Its  silly  wa's  the  wins  are  strewin' ! 

"  Thou  saw  the  fields  laid  bare  an'  waste, 
And  weary  winter  comin'  fast, 
An'  cozie  here,  beneath  the  blast, 

Thou  thought  to  dwell, 
Till,  crash !  the  cruel  coulter  pass'd 

Out  thro'  thy  cell." 

And  the  same  thought  that  cares  for  the  tiniest  form  of  life 
takes  into  its  great  heart  the  life  of  the  mountain  daisy,  and 
he  sings :  — 

"  There,  in  thy  scanty  mantle  clad, 
Thy  snawie  bosom  sunward  spread, 
Thou  lifts  thy  unassuming  head 

In  humble  guise ; 
But  now  the  share  uptears  thy  bed, 
And  low  thou  lies !  " 

Looked  at  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  mountain  daisy 
and  the  mouse,  the  grasses  and  the  flowers,  the  process  that 
is  going  on  is  destruction,  and  only  destruction.  But  the  far- 
mer knows,  and  every  observer  knows,  that  it  is  something 
more  than  destruction  ;  that  it  is  the  preparatory  process  for 
a  larger,  sweeter  life  ;  that  it  is  prophecy  of  the  harvest. 


160  Signs  of  the  Times 

This  intimates  the  kind  of  destruction  that  goes  on  in 
other  parts  of  God's  creation  besides  the  fields  of  the 
farmer. 

The  same  lesson  we  may  learn  from  the  history  of  the 
growth  of  this  planet,  this  our  home.  Those  who  have  made 
a  careful  study  of  geology  tell  us  that,  ages  ago,  the  earth 
looked  very  different  from  what  it  does  now.  The  present 
continent  then  may  have  been  beneath  the  sea,  and  that 
which  is  now  the  ocean  bottom  may  be  made  of  the  conti- 
nents that  were  green  and  thrilling  and  throbbing  with  life. 
We  know  that  perpetually  a  process  of  wasting  and  wearing 
is  going  on  \  that  the  ocean  is  tearing  down  the  cliffs  and 
wasting  away  the  shore.  But  we  know  that  this  is  not  de- 
struction that  means  waste :  it  is  only  the  process  by  which 
God  builds  a  home  for  his  children.  Now  and  then  a  con- 
tinent is  shaken,  and  a  chain  of  mountains  is  heaved  into  the 
air.  This,  again,  is  only  one  of  the  steps  of  progress  by 
which  the  world  grows,  so  that  here,  everywhere,  from  the 
beginning  until  now,  has  been  going  on  this  process  of  de- 
struction, this  prophecy  and  promise  of  larger  building. 

One  more  illustration  to  show  you  that  I  am  dealing  not 
with  something  peculiar  to  religion,  as  a  great  many  people 
in  their  thoughtlessness  seem  to  suppose,  but  that  we  are 
dealing  with  a  world-wide,  an  age-long  principle.  Let  us  see 
what  happens  in  the  sphere  of  government. 

The  early  tribes  and  peoples  organize  themselves  as  best 
they  may.  But  we  know  that  the  first  attempts  at  government 
are  always  harsh,  hard,  cruel,  the  domination  of  some  war- 
chief  of  relentless  power,  or  some  despot  who  lords  it  over 
his  fellows.  We  know,  also,  that,  when  people  become  ac- 
customed to  the  forms  of  government  in  which  they  have 
been  born  and  have  grown  up,  they  are  apt  to  identify  gov- 
ernment itself  with  these  forms.     But  what  happens  ?     Peo- 


Break-ups  that  mean  Advance  161 

pie  become  wiser.  They  learn  more.  They  desire  their 
freedom.  The  conditions  that  surround  them  do  not  favor 
the  best  and  noblest  life  that  is  in  them.  There  is  not  room 
for  the  development  of  the  highest  and  finest  manhood  ;  and 
yet  those  who  dominate  and  govern  wish  to  retain  their  privi- 
leges, and  they  identify  these  particular  forms  of  govern- 
ment with  government  itself,  and  so  are  not  willing  to  relin- 
quish their  hold.  What  is  going  on  in  Russia  to-day  ?  The 
Czar,  the  nobility,  are  attempting  to  keep  things  as  they 
have  been  for  ages,  attempting  to  repress  and  hold  down  this 
living,  rising,  expanding  power  which  is  in  human  hearts  and 
brains.  So  we  know  they  are  in  danger  of  revolution  every 
moment  of  every  day.  Unless  the  human  race  can  progress 
in  some  peaceful,  quiet,  natural  way,  it  must  by  revolution. 
But  when  this  power  asserts  itself,  when  men  and  women 
declare  that  they  will  have  freedom  to  be  the  best  that  is  in 
them,  it  does  not  mean  the  destruction  of  government.  It 
means  only  that  the  principles  of  a  higher,  finer  power  of 
government  are  developed  within  their  own  hearts  and  lives, 
and  that  the  old  form  is  no  longer  fitted  to  that  larger  life. 

In  the  time  of  the  French  Revolution,  it  was  perfectly 
natural  that  the  king  and  nobility,  and  all  the  adherents  of 
the  old  regime,  should  suppose  that  the  world  was  coming  to 
an  end, —  that  all  government  was  in  danger,  and  that  an- 
archy, the  destruction  of  all  order,  was  at  hand.  And  yet 
history  teaches  us  that  it  was  only  the  people  demanding 
room  to  grow,  room  to  think,  room  to  live  out  their  higher, 
finer  life. 

Note  one  thing  which  is  suggestive  as  parallel  to  what 
is  true  too  in  religion.  As  the  world  gets  wiser  and  bet- 
ter, the  forms  of  government — the  external  display  of  it  — 
may  naturally  and  safely  become  less  and  less,  because,  as 
the   principles    of    government    become   incarnated   in   the 


1 62  Signs  of  the   Times 

hearts  and  lives  of  the  people,  they  do  not  need  this  outward 
display,  this  external  pressure,  to  hold  them  in  order.  They 
grow  orderly  like  the  unfolding  life  of  a  tree. 

Come,  now,  and  note  the  same  thing  going  on  in  religion. 
We  are  passing  through  a  phase  of  religious  life  that  un- 
doubtedly means  the  destruction  of  the  old  order,  the  break- 
ing up  of  the  old  faith.  You  have  to  go  back  only  one  or 
two  hundred  years  in  Europe,  to  come  to  a  period  when  the 
Church  held  the  life  of  Europe  in  its  hands,  dominated  not 
only  in  the  airy  regions  of  faith,  but  controlled  the  earthly, 
or  secular,  matters  as  well.  The  Church  was  the  dominant 
power,  not  only  in  the  intellectual  world,  in  the  moral  life, 
in  the  Church,  but  in  the  State,  everywhere.  To-day  it  has 
lost  its  grasp  on  Europe,  not  showing  a  capacity  as  yet  to 
expand  its  life  to  meet  the  growing  demands  of  the  people. 
It  has  been  pushed  one  side  and  is  being  left  behind. 

In  Protestant  countries  very  much  the  same  process  is 
going  on.  The  Church  holds  no  such  place  in  the  rever- 
ence, in  the  thought,  in  the  love,  of  the  people,  as  it  did  a 
hundred  years  ago.  The  newspaper,  literature,  science,  art, 
all  of  these,  instead  of  being  servants  of  the  Church  as  they 
once  were,  have  taken  the  position  of  rivals ;  and  there  are 
thousands  of  people  who  feel  as  though  they  could  get  along 
very  well  without  the  Church. 

Then  those  who  stand  as  representatives  of  the  Church 
do  not  preach  the  old  dogmas,  the  old  conceptions  of  things, 
as  they  used  to.  They  do  not  make  the  extraordinary  claims 
they  used  to.  I  suppose  there  are  hardly  any  ministers  of 
any  church  to-day  who  will  claim  that  it  is  absolutely  neces- 
sary for  a  man  to  be  a  member  of  any  particular  communion, 
in  order  to  stand  in  right  relations  with  God,  to  be  "  saved." 
This  process,  then,  of  the  apparent  disintegration  of  the  old 
faith  in  religion  is  going  on. 


Break-ups  that  mean  Advance  163 

Let  us  note,  for  a  moment,  certain  accompaniments  of  this 
change,  and  see  whether  they  can  be  looked  upon  as  causes. 

Is  the  Church,  as  organized  religion,  losing  its  hold  on  the 
masses  of  men  because  these  men  do  not  know  so  much,  are 
not  so  wise,  as  they  used  to  be  ?  You  know  very  well  that 
there  never  was  a  time  in  the  history  of  the  world  when  the 
average  intelligence  of  men  was  so  high  as  it  is  to-day. 
Whatever  this  process  may  mean,  it  does  not  mean  that  the 
Church  has  lost  its  hold  because  people  are  growing  igno- 
rant. People  are  not  growing  ignorant :  they  are  wiser  than 
they  were. 

Are  they  less  reverent  than  they  used  to  be?  I  cannot 
think  so.  The  exhibition  of  irreverence  here  and  there 
means  not  that  the  people  do  not  revere  that  which  seems  to 
them  worthy  of  reverence,  but  it  means  only  that  they  re- 
gard these  things  no  longer  as  able  to  command  the  rever- 
ence of  their  hearts  as  they  used  to.  They  are  shifting  their 
attitude.  They  do  not  stand  in  the  same  relation  to  these 
things.     They  do  not  look  at  them  as  they  once  did. 

Does  the  world  care  less  for  truth  now  than  it  used  to? 
Is  that  the  reason  why  it  has  turned  away  from  what  the  old 
churches  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  as  God's  truth  ?  I 
think  that  every  competent  man  who  has  observed  the  drift 
of  the  world  will  be  obliged  to  confess  that  there  never  was 
a  time  since  humanity  existed  when  men  were  so  eager  to 
find  the  truth  about  everything  as  they  are  to-day.  Men  are 
seeking  for  the  truth  with  a  thirst  that  only  the  truth  can 
slake, —  the  truth  in  heaven,  the  truth  on  earth,  the  truth  of 
the  past,  the  truth  of  the  present,  the  truth  about  everything. 
Truth  is  the  one  thing  in  whose  presence  all  men  are  ready 
to  uncover,  and  at  whose  feet  all  people  are  ready  to  bow. 

Is  it  because  people  are  not  so  good,  morally,  as  they  used 
to  be  that  religion  is  losing  its  hold  upon  them  ?     Are  they 


164  Signs  of  the  Times 

giving  up  something  and  in  the  place  of  it  taking  something 
poorer,  and  so  as  a  natural  result  deteriorating  ?  Every  care- 
ful student  of  the  world  knows  that  there  never  was  a  time 
in  the  history  of  man  when  the  average  love  of  justice,  the 
love  of  mercy,  the  love  of  good,  noble,  and  humane  qualities, 
was  so  high  as  to-day.     What  then  ? 

Whatever  this  change  may  mean  that  we  are  going 
through,  it  is  not  because  of  the  world's  growing  less  wise, 
less  reverent,  less  truth-loving,  less  good ;  and  we  who  love 
religion,  and  believe  in  it,  can  we  confess  for  a  moment  that 
the  cause  of  the  "  decay  of  religion  "  is  the  fact  that  the  world 
is  growing  wiser  and  better  ?  If  we  dare  make  a  confession 
like  that,  then  it  means  the  death  of  religion.  Humanity  is 
not  going  to  take  one  backward  step  in  this  matter  of  wis- 
dom or  goodness  or  reverence  or  love  for  truth.  And  if 
religion  is  being  outgrown  by  this  process  of  humanity's 
becoming  better,  then  is  it  indeed  proved  to  be  a  thing 
that  belonged  only  in  the  childhood  of  the  race ,  and  that 
can  be  dispensed  with  by  our  grown-up  manhood. 

I  am  afraid,  in  order  to  outline  my  subject  thoroughly  and 
as  carefully  as  it  deserves,  that  I  may  be  obliged  to  repeat 
some  of  the  things  I  have  said  and  possibly  some  illustra- 
tions which  I  have  used  in  previous  years.  If  I  do  so,  I  do 
it  with  my  eyes  open,  and  because  there  are  some  things 
that  need  to  be  repeated  and  impressed  upon  the  minds  of 
thoughtful  people,  in  order  that  they  may  comprehend  the 
kind  of  world  in  which  they  are  living. 

I  wish  to  raise  the  question  as  to  what  religion  is,  although 
I  have  done  it  before,  that  you  may  see  that  in  my  opinion, 
whatever  is  happening,  it  is  not  the  decay  of  religion. 

Religion  has  always  been,  from  the  beginning  of  the  world 
until  now,  and  always  must  be  the  same  thing  in  essence. 
It  only  changes  its  form  as  men  change  their  conceptions  of 


Break-ups  that  mean  Advance  165 

the  world,  of  God,  of  themselves.  Religion  is  and  always 
has  been  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  men  to  get  into  closer, 
more  helpful  relations  with  God,  or  with  whatever  power 
they  think  of  as  manifesting  itself  in  and  governing  the 
universe.  The  lowest  fetich  worshipper  recognizes  a  power 
outside  of  him  that  can  help  or  hurt  him,  and  his  religion 
is  praying  or  making  an  offering  to  this  power,  to  ward  off 
his  anger,  if  he  thinks  he  is  displeased,  or  to  win  his  favor, 
if  he  desres  his  help.  And  the  highest  and  noblest  Chris- 
tian that  ever  lived  is  engaged  in  precisely  the  same  effort. 
He  is  trying  to  do  what  he  believes  God  wants  him  to  do, 
whether  it  is  to  pray  or  read  the  Bible  or  sing  a  hymn  or 
engage  in  a  service  or  preach  a  sermon  or  help  an  unfortu- 
nate fellow-man  or  cultivate  a  special  internal  feeling  or 
state  of  mind.  He  is  trying  to  do  what  he  believes  God 
wants  him  to  do,  for  the  sake  of  getting  into  a  closer  and 
more  friendly  relation  with  his  God.  How  people  will  do  it, 
what  form  of  service  they  will  engage  in,  all  the  external 
manifestation  of  the  religious  life,  must  always  turn  on  what 
people  think  about  God,  what  they  think  about  themselves, 
what  they  think  God  wants  them  to  do. 

You  see,  then,  that  religion  always  has  been  one  in  pur- 
pose, in  essence;  and  you  see  that  that  essence  and  the 
effort  of  science  are  precisely  the  same.  The  scientific  man, 
whether  he  believes  in  God  or  not,  believes  in  a  power  that 
is  not  himself,  that  is  outside  of  him,  that  produces  him,  a 
dower  in  relation  to  which  he  must  live,  a  power  that  may 
help  him  or  hurt  him ;  and  so  the  whole  effort  of  science  is 
simply  to  find  out  the  nature  of  this  power  and  get  into  right 
relations  with  it.  Science  has  for  its  essential  idea,  purpose, 
and  aim,  precisely  the  same  thing  that  religion  has,  always 
has  had,  and  always  must  have.  Religion,  then,  is  simply 
man's  search  for  the  secret  of  life.     It  is  man  trying  to  get 


1 66  Signs  of  the  Times 

into  right  relation  with  this  power  that  folds  him  in  its  arms, 
—  the  power  in  coming  into  right  relations  with  which  he 
finds  life,  prosperity,  happiness ;  the  power  that  was  here 
before  he  came,  and  that  will  be  here  after  he  has  passed 
away.  Religion  in  its  very  nature  is  eternal.  So  long  as 
there  is  a  universe,  so  long  as  there  is  a  man  in  the  universe 
capable  of  thinking  about  the  relation  in  which  he  stands  to 
it,  so  long  religion  must  remain,  no  matter  what  name  it 
wears  or  what  form  it  assumes.  Religion,  then,  is  one  of 
the  immortals.  You  may  be  sure,  then,  that  the  process  we 
are  passing  through,  however  many  religions  may  die,  does 
not  mean  the  death  of  religion  itself. 

We  are  ready  now  to  note  what  it  is  that  is  taking  place, 
and  consider  whether  the  process  through  which  we  are  pass- 
ing is  a  discouraging  or  a  hopeful  one. 

The  first  thing  that  has  happened  is  such  a  growth  on  the 
part  of  human  intelligence  as  gives  us  an  entirely  new  and 
enormously  expanded  conception  of  this  universe  that  is  our 
home.  We  are  passing  through  a  process  of  outgrowing  one 
universe  and  becoming  gradually  adapted  to  and  at  home  in 
another.  And  the  new  one  is  so  grand  in  its  dimensions  that 
the  first  feeling  of  those  who  have  left  the  old  and  are  look- 
ing out  into  the  new  is  of  being  utterly  astray  and  alone. 

Thirty-six  years  after  this  city  of  Boston  was  founded, 
Milton  took  out  a  license  in  London  for  the  publication  of 
"Paradise  Lost."  The  idea  of  the  universe  represented  in 
Milton's  poem  was  the  old  idea  which  the  world  had  held  for 
hundreds  of  years.  We  talk  about  the  "  spheres  "  to-day ; 
but  we  have  iorgotten  completely  —  the  most  of  us  —  that 
the  meaning  of  that  word  "  sphere  "  has  completely  changed 
since  Shakspere  wrote  it,  since  Milton  wrote  it.  What  was 
the  old  universe  ?  The  world,  this  little  planet  of  ours,  was 
the  centre ;  and  outside  of  it  were  ten  crystalline,  concentric 


Break-ups  that  mean  Advance  167 

spheres,  just  as  substantial,  just  as  real,  as  those  globes  that 
surround  the  gas-jets.  To  these  were  attached  the  moon, 
sun,  planets ;  and  in  the  outer  one  were  all  the  stars. 
These  spheres  revolved,  holding  the  planets  and  sun  and 
stars  in  their  orbits.  And  the  whole  universe  was  not  so 
large  as  the  at  present  known  orbit  of  the  moon;  for  it 
took  Satan  and  his  angels  only  nine  days  and  nights  to  fall 
from  heaven  clear  to  the  bottom  of  the  universe,  according 
to  Milton's  picture. 

Let  me  now  hint  a  word  as  to  how  we  are  trying  to  get  the 
universe  adjusted  to  our  thought  to-day.  It  takes  light  eight 
and  a  half  minutes  to  travel  the  92,500,000  miles  from  the 
sun  to  the  earth.  When  you  leave  our  sun,  our  nearest 
neighbor,  the  very  first  star  beyond  our  system  is  so  far 
away  that  it  takes  its  light  three  and  a  half  years  to  reach 
us.  And  then  where  are  we  ?  Standing  on  the  threshold  of 
a  universe  that  is  infinite.  In  every  direction  open  out  star- 
lighted  vistas  that  lose  themselves  in  measureless  space. 
This  system  of  ours  is  part  of  the  Milky  Way.  It  is  a  little 
river  of  light,  apparently  a  sort  of  Gulf  Stream,  crossing  the 
ocean  of  the  sky  over  our  heads.  Sir  William  Herschel 
estimated  that,  as  he  looked  at  and  studied  the  Milky  Way, 
116,000  suns  passed  across  the  field  of  his  telescope  in  fifteen 
minutes.  On  another  occasion  258,000  crossed  the  field  of 
his  telescope  in  forty-one  minutes.  Think  what  a  change 
of  thought  two  centuries  have  wrought  concerning  this  house 
of  God  that  is  our  home  ! 

And  is  it  any  loss  ?  Think  of  the  immeasurably  grander 
world  of  which  we  are  inhabitants. 

Then  what  must  we  think  of  God  ?  Can  we  have  the  old 
ideas  any  longer, —  of  God  just  a  little  way  over  our  heads, 
sitting  on  a  throne,  sending  out  angel  messengers  to  see  how 
things  are  with  us  down  here  on  our  little  earth,  and  receiv- 


1 63  Signs  of  the   Tunes 

ing  their  reports  as  a  king  would  send  out  a  messenger  to 
some  distant  province  and  receive  his  message  on  his  return  ? 

Now  where  and  what  is  God  ?  Where  is  he  not  ?  We  may 
well  use  the  bold  poetry  of  the  Israelitish  writer,  and  say 
that  he  weigheth  the  stars  as  the  dust  of  his  balance,  he 
taketh  up  the  isles  as  a  very  little  thing.  Suns  a  thousand 
times  larger  than  ours  attest  his  power  in  the  far-off  deeps 
of  heaven.  But  he  is  not  there  alone.  I  hold  in  my  hand 
the  tiniest  flower  that  has  opened  this  morning ;  and  I  need 
all  of  God  to  explain  to  me  its  petals,  its  tinting,  its  fra- 
grance. I  look  into  your  eyes ;  and  God  looks  out  of  them, 
out  of  the  love,  the  intelligence,  of  your  souls,  into  mine. 
God  is  not  on  a  throne ;  but  he  is  everywhere, — the  life, 
power,  grace,  tenderness,  care,  of  the  world,  infinitely  nearer 
to  us  than  he  used  to  be  when  we  thought  that  we  could 
send  up  a  prayer,  and  he  would  send  down  an  angel  to 
hear  what  we  wanted,  by  his  hand  minister  to  our  necessities. 
It  is  God  himself  that  ministers  to  our  necessities  every  wak- 
ing and  every  sleeping  hour  of  every  day  and  every  night, — 
God,  all  of  God,  all  his  wisdom,  all  his  love,  all  his  care, 
holding  us  in  his  arms,  leading  us  by  his  hand  with  a  tender- 
ness and  a  grace  as  complete  as  though  it  were  all  he  had  to 
do.  This  is  the  God  that  we  are  trying  to  think  to-day.  Is 
there  any  loss  about  it  ?  Infinite  gain,  rather,  to  those  who 
wake  up  to  and  appreciate  what  the  growing  intelligence  of 
the  world  signifies. 

Then,  with  this  new  universe  and  this  new  God,  we  must 
have  a  new  conception  of  humanity,  not  the  wreck  and  ruin 
of  a  modern  creation, —  man  young,  indeed,  compared  with 
the  stars,  young,  indeed,  compared  with  the  planet  itself,  his 
home,  but  man  unspeakably  older  than  our  minds  are  cap- 
able of  comprehending.  Man  has  been  here  on  this  planet 
perhaps   two   hundred   thousand   years.     He   began  in   the 


Break-ups  that  mean  Advance  169 

lowest  animalism  and  barbarism,  and  he  has  been  climbing 
up  a  stairway  whose  steps  were  tears  and  heartache  and 
blood ;  but  not  these  only,  joy,  also,  and  hope  and  love.  He 
has  been  climbing  up  by  every  process  that  has  made  him 
more  a  man,  until  to-day  he  is  king  of  the  planet,  learning 
more  and  more  of  God's  great  secrets,  grasping  more  and 
more  the  forces  we  call  natural,  but  which  are  only  the  pres- 
ent living  God,  coming  into  closer  relation  with  God  at  every 
step,  being  helped  by  him  to  a  wider,  higher,  larger  life, — 
man  not  fallen,  man  ascending  from  the  beginning,  man  to 
ascend  still  —  until  the  end  shall  I  say  ?  No,  friends,  though 
we  cannot  comprehend  it,  and  the  words  mean  nothing  to 
us,  there  is  no  end.  Out  through  the  darkness,  out  through 
the  clouds  that  seem  to  mark  the  limit  of  life,  we  are  begin- 
ning to  learn  that  he  goes  on,  his  whole  self,  as  he  has  de- 
veloped until  the  moment  that  he  disappears  from  our  sight,, 
climbing  on  and  up  Godward,  precisely  the  same  as  when 
here.  Our  whole  conception,  then,  of  the  nature  of  this  man 
and  how  to  deal  with  him  has  been  changed, —  changed  by 
our  learning  God's  truth  about  him,  that  is  all.  It  is  not 
a  lower  conception,  not  a  loss,  but  an  unspeakable  gain. 

And,  then,  we  are  getting  a  larger  and  finer  idea  of  God's 
revelation  to  the  world.  He  did  not  send  one  little  book  to 
one  little  people  and  leave  all  the  rest  of  his  children,  all  the 
nations,  the  races,  of  the  world,  to  stumble  and  fall  in  dark- 
ness. We  believe  to-day  that  he  has  sent  under  every  sky, 
to  every  tongue  and  people,  just  so  much  light  as  they  were 
capable  of  receiving,  and  that  he  is  leading  them  on  grad- 
ually, slowly,  through  the  ages, —  for  the  Infinite  Power  in 
infinite  time  is  in  no  haste, —  leading  them  on  to  a  grander 
perception  of  the  ever  grander  truth.  We  are  learning  to 
think  of  all  truth,  whatever  its  source  or  however  it  comes  to 
us,  as  so  many  sentences  in  the  ever-growing  book  of  God. 


17°  Signs  of  the  Times 

We  have  changed,  then,  our  entire  conception  of  the  uni- 
verse, of  God,  of  man,  of  revelation,  of  destiny.  And  these 
changes  have  come  about  not  as  the  result  of  any  deteriora- 
tion. The  old  ideas  are  crumbling,  being  disintegrated,  not 
because  of  ignorance,  not  because  of  immorality,  not  because 
of  infidelity,  as  it  is  used  in  a  sneering  sense  of  any  unbelief. 
The  world's  infidelity  means  simply  a  larger  belief.  We  are 
outgrowing  these  old  ideas,  and  finding  out  that  they  are  not 
large  enough  to  match  the  universe  of  God. 

What,  then,  ought  to  be  the  duty  of  men  ?  To  trust  in 
God  and  love  their  fellow-men, —  not  a  duty  of  fear,  not  a 
duty  of  hesitancy,  not  a  duty  of  looking  back  with  regret. 
We  may  have  our  sentiment,  if  we  will,  about  the  things  that 
the  world  has  loved  and  cherished  so  long.  I  should  think 
less  of  any  man  who  had  no  sentiment  about  his  boyhood ; 
but  I  should  think  less  still  of  him  if  he  had  so  little  appre- 
ciation of  his  manhood  that  he  wished  to  go  back  and  be  a 
boy  again.  Reverence  the  things  that  pertain  to  the  child- 
hood of  the  race,  love  them,  deal  with  them  tenderly,  as  with 
old  associations,  but  recognize  the  fact  of  your  growing  man- 
hood and  womanhood,  and  turn  bravely,  grandly,  with  a 
magnificent  faith  in  God,  to  the  day-dawn.  I  do  not  believe 
this  world  is  hastening  to  decay.  We  are  only  emerging 
from  the  morning  twilight,  not  descending  into  the  evening. 
God's  great  day  and  humanity's  great  day  are  still  ahead 
of  us. 

What,  then,  of  the  duty  and  work  of  the  Church  ?  Is  the 
Church  to  become  less  and  less  as  time  goes  on  ?  We  shall 
change  our  emphasis  in  regard  to  many  things.  A  great 
many  rites  and  ceremonies  and  services  that  have  been  re- 
garded as  vital  will  lose  all  their  meaning  to  us  for  the 
simple  reason  that  we  have  outgrown  them.  The  advancing 
Church,  in   the   light   of  the  advancing  knowledge  of  the 


Break-ups  that  mean  Advance  171 

world,  will  find  grander  sanctities,  grander  rites  and  services, 
grander  songs,  to  match  a  grander  world  and  a  grander  God. 
There  shall  be  no  less  of  reverence,  of  sacredness,  of  any  of 
the  fine,  sweet,  high  things  that  make  up  the  duty  and  glory 
of  the  religious  life. 

And  the  Church  will  become  organized,  I  believe,  by  and 
by  into  something  more  magnificent  than  the  past  has  ever 
dreamed  of.  Science,  philosophy,  literature,  poetry,  paint- 
ing, sculpture,  music,  all  these  things  were  once  ministers 
and  servants  of  the  Church.  They  shall  be  again  ;  for,  when 
humanity  has  grasped  the  idea  that  religion  is  the  grandest 
concern  of  the  human  brain  as  well  as  of  the  human  heart, 
that  it  means  the  science  of  all  life  in  this  world  and  forever- 
more,  then  the  Church  will  organize  itself  round  these  mag- 
nificent ideas,  and  will  call  into  its  service  once  more  all 
science,  all  literature,  all  art,  all  music,  all  poetry,  and  so 
assert  and  make  good  its  claim  to  the  utmost  reverence  and 
love  of  all  mankind. 

And  now,  as  illustrating  my  faith,  I  wish  to  give  you  what 
I  think  is  a  noble  expression  of  this  whole  line  of  thought, 
put  into  form  by  our  beloved  Unitarian  poet,  Oliver  Wendell 
Holmes :  — 

The  waves  unbuild  the  wasting  shore ; 

Where  mountains  towered,  the  billows  sweep, 
Yet  still  their  borrowed  spoils  restore, 

And  raise  new  empires  from  the  deep. 

So,  while  the  floods  of  thought  lay  waste 

The  old  domain  of  chartered  creeds, 
Its  heaven-appointed  tides  will  haste 

To  shape  new  homes  for  human  needs. 

Be  ours  to  mark  with  hearts  unchilled 

The  change  an  outworn  age  deplores ; 
The  legend  sinks,  but  faith  shall  build 

A  fairer  throne  on  new-found  shores. 


172  Signs  of  the  Times 

The  star  shall  glow  in  western  skies 
That  shone  o'er  Bethlehem's  hallowed  shrine, 

And  once  again  the  temple  rise 
That  crowned  the  rock  of  Palestine. 


Though  scattered  far,  the  flock  may  stray : 
His  own  the  Shepherd  still  shall  claim, — 

The  saints  who  never  learned  to  pray, 
The  friends  who  never  spoke  his  name. 

Dear  Master,  while  we  hear  thy  voice 

That  says,  "  The  truth  shall  make  you  free," 

Thy  servants  still  by  loving  choice, 
Oh,  keep  us  faithful  unto  thee ! 


THE  NEW  CITY  OF  GOD. 


Under  the  figure  of  a  garden  of  plenty  and  peace  or  of 
a  golden  age  or  of  a  perfect  city,  humanity  has  always  been 
dreaming  of  an  ideal  condition  for  the  race.  But  it  is  one 
of  the  marked  signs  of  the  present  time  that  these  dreams 
are  coming  to  be  something  more  than  dreams.  They  are 
not  merely  in  the  air  to  amuse  the  idle  fancies  of  a  leisure 
hour,  not  something  thought  of  —  hardly  as  a  possibility,  but 
—  only  as  a  beautiful  thing,  if  it  might  be.  In  the  modern 
world,  these  dreams  of  the  ideal  have  come  to  be  motive 
forces.  They  are  watchwords,  they  are  rallying  cries.  People 
believe  more  than  they  used  to  in  the  possibilities  of  human 
progress.  They  believe  that  these  dreams  can  be  brought 
down  out  of  the  sky,  and  organized  as  realities  under  the 
forms  of  human  society. 

Since  this  is  so,  it  seemed  to  me  that  I  could  do  no  more 
fitting  thing  in  the  last  of  this  series  than  to  consider  a  little 
some  of  these  dreams,  try  to  find  out  which  way  the  forces 
of  the  world  are  moving,  so  that  we  may  co-operate,  if  possi- 
ble, with  those  forces,  and  help  on  the  realization  of  human- 
ity's age-long  and  long-deferred  hope  ;  for  we  need  to  know 
which  way  the  forces  of  the  world  are  moving,  apart  from  any 
conscious  or  purposed  endeavor  of  our  own.  If  I  believed, 
as  many  loud-voiced  reformers  seem  to,  that  the  universe  up 
to  the  present  time  had  been  all  wrong, —  wrong  from  first  to 
last, —  that  things  were  deteriorating,  that  things  were  perpet- 


174  Signs  of  the   Times 

ually  changing  to  the  worse,  then  I,  for  one,  should  have  no 
heart  even  to  attempt  the  deliverance  of  the  world.  Unless 
the  infinite  forces  are  with  us,  what  avail  all  our  puny  attempts 
to  construct  an  ideal  earth  ?  Our  only  hope  is  in  the  faith 
that  there  has  been  advance  from  the  beginning,  that  we  are 
advancing  forward  and  upward  to-day ;  and  the  only  thing 
that  we  can  do  is  to  find  out  which  way  God  is  moving, 
and,  instead  of  playing  the  part  of  obstruction  and  hindrance, 
do  what  we  can  to  co-operate,  help  on,  hasten  a  little,  the 
coming 

"  Of  that  far-off  divine  event 
To  which  the  whole  creation  moves." 

I  ask  you  to  consider  a  few  typical  examples  of  this  dream 
of  the  ideal  as  it  has  been  indulged  in,  in  the  past,  so  that 
you  may  see  the  changed  conceptions  of  our  modern  thought 
as  to  how  these  things  are  to  be  brought  about. 

And,  first,  I  call  your  attention  to  the  dream  of  John  on 
Patmos.  It  is  evident  that  he  had  no  conception  of  any 
natural  social  good  order  here  in  the  world.  The  earth  was 
under  the  control  of  him  who  is  called  in  the  New  Testament 
"the  god  of  this  world,"  —  the  evil  power.  Humanity  was 
in  a  hopeless  condition,  so  far  as  itself  was  concerned. 
So  John's  dream  is  of  an  ideal  divine,  perfect  city,  not  built 
on  the  earth,  not  the  result  of  any  human  endeavor,  but 
miraculously  let  down  out  of  the  heavens.  His  idea  was 
that  humanity  could  be  saved  only  by  divine  interposition 
from  without.  He  had  no  conception  of  humanity's  achiev- 
ing its  own  deliverance,  of  there  being  any  divine  force  in 
humanity  working  to  the  natural  production  of  any  realiza- 
tion of  his  dream. 

A  few  ages  later,  we  come  to  the  time  of  Augustine,  the 
great  intellectual  work  of   whose   life   was   the   book   from 


The  New  City  of  God  175: 

which  I  have  taken  the  hint  of  my  subject,  "The  City  of 
God."  The  Roman  empire  was  crumbling,  hastening  to  its 
decay.  Augustine  conceived  the  idea  of  the  Church  as  a 
divine  order  miraculously  constructed,  miraculously  created, 
which  was  to  be  built  upon  the  ruins  of  the  empire,  and  so 
be  the  embodiment  of  an  ideal  political  and  social  as  well 
as  religious  order.  But  his  dream  proved  to  be  only  a 
dream,  never  to  be  realized ;  for  that  Church  which  he  saw 
growing  until  it  mastered  and  controlled  the  whole  earth  is 
to-day  weaker  than  it  has  ever  been  for  a  thousand  years,, 
and  so  evidently  a  thing  of  the  past  that  its  bitterest  enemy 
need  not  stand  in  terror  of  it  any  more. 

For  a  series  of  centuries  after  the  time  of  Augustine,  all 
the  kings  of  Europe  put  forth  the  claim  that  they  ruled  by 
divine  right.  They  tried  to  encircle  their  corrupt,  selfish, 
oppressive,  tyrannous  crowns  with  a  halo  of  divine  glory, 
setting  themselves  up  as  the  ministers  of  God  for  the  organi- 
zation of  human  society.  But  all  these  dreams  have  faded, 
and  become  a  thing  of  the  past. 

One  more  attempt  was  made,  which,  on  account  of  its 
peculiar  significance,  I  need  to  note.  When  the  Puritans 
and  the  Pilgrims  fled  from  persecution  on  the  other  side  the 
sea,  and  came  to  our  dear  old  New  England,  they  came  with 
the  avowed  intention,  the  clear  thought  out  purpose,  of  es- 
tablishing here  a  divine  political  and  social  order,  nothing 
less  than  a  theocracy, —  a  kingdom  of  God  on  earth.  No 
one  but  "saints,"  church  members,  were  to  have  any  control 
in  political  affairs.  No  one  but  church  members  might  vote  -r 
and,  when  laws  were  passed,  these  laws  were,  according  to 
their  understanding,  only  translations  of  the  divine  law  as 
recorded  in  the  only  infallible  Book, —  translations  of  God's 
law  into  the  statutes  of  our  old  Commonwealth.  And  how 
far  did  their  dream  succeed  ?     It  succeeded  only  in  making 


176  Signs  of  the  Times 

itself  a  sad  lesson  of  cruelty,  of  narrowness,  bigotry,  perse- 
cution, that  meant  anything  but  freedom,  anything  but  the 
development  of  perfect  individuality,  anything  but  peace  and 

joy- 

At  the  present  time,  you  have  only  to  read  the  reviews  and 
the  newspapers,  you  have  only  to  listen  to  public  addresses 
on  every  hand,  to  be  made  aware  of  the  fact  that  there 
are  definite,  earnest  attempts  being  made  to  realize  a  half- 
dozen  different,  antagonistic,  mutually  exclusive  dreams  of 
a  perfect  social  order.  On  the  one  hand,  men  are  at- 
tempting to  bring  about  a  condition  of  anarchy ;  that  is, 
a  condition  not  necessarily,  according  to  their  ideas,  of 
social  disorder,  but  merely  of  utter  individual  freedom, —  the 
abolition  of  all  social  constraint.  Some  of  the  earnest 
advocates  of  these  ideas  really  believe  that  most  of  the  evils 
of  society  to-day  are  the  result  of  misguided  and  foolish 
attempts  to  control  individual  action  instead  of  leaving  men 
and  women  to  act  out  the  natures  with  which  they  are 
endowed.  On  the  other  hand,  you  will  note  that  there  are 
those  who  hold  a  precisely  contrary  theory, —  the  Socialists, 
Nationalists,  who  believe  that  there  is  too  much  individual 
freedom  already.  If  their  ideas  could  be  carried  out,  they 
would  make  all  of  us  simply  fragments,  parts,  of  a  great 
social  machine,  where  there  should  be  very  little  of  individ- 
ual initiative,  very  little  of  individual  liberty  of  any  kind, 
but  where  every  man,  woman,  and  child  should  live  not  for 
himself  or  herself,  but  only  for  this  ideal  organism  that  is 
spoken  of  as  society,  or  the  nation. 

Then  there  is  Tolstoi  with  his  dream  of  a  social  order,  to 
bring  about  which  he  is  engaged  in  the  writing  and  publish- 
ing of  books  and  pamphlets,  making  use  of  his  great  influ- 
ence in  every  direction. 

There  is  William  Morris,  the  poet,  the  artist,  the  socialist, 


The  New  City  of  God  177 

whom  I  had  the  pleasure  of  visiting  and  talking  with  in 
London  last  summer,  who  has,  on  the  other  hand,  his  ideal, 
and  is  as  earnest  as  any  missionary  propagandist  in  all  the 
world ;  who,  with  all  his  culture,  all  his  artistic  ability,  all 
his  power  and  influence  of  every  kind,  goes  into  the  streets 
day  after  day,  evening  after  evening,  preaching  what  he 
believes  to  be  the  gospel  of  the  new  society  to  any  chance 
crowd  that  he  may  gather  to  listen  to  his  words. 

All  these  movements,  then,  are  going  on,  showing  the  rest- 
lessness of  humanity  at  the  present  time, —  restive  under 
imperfect  conditions,  restive  under  its  burden  of  disease,  of 
poverty,  of  crime,  haunted  by  the  ideal  of  a  better  state,  and 
beginning  to  believe  that  it  is  in  the  power  of  men  to  radi- 
cally change  and  better  their  conditions.  They  are  not 
dreaming  only  any  longer,  but  making  their  dreams  motive 
force  for  earnest  endeavor. 

I  wish  now  to  attempt  —  as  well  as  I  can  in  the  time  that 
is  mine  —  to  give  you  some  hints  concerning  what  I  believe 
to  be  the  ideal  condition  of  the  race,  concerning  what  seems 
to  me  to  be  the  divine  methods  as  they  are  apparent  in  the 
history  of  the  past,  and  so  to  give  you  some  hints  as  to 
hopeful  directions  in  which  we  may  put  forth  our  efforts  to 
turn  the  dreams  of  our  enthusiasm  into  reality  in  the  days 
that  are  to  come. 

What  would  be  an  ideal  condition  of  humanity  ?  I  do 
not  want  that  city  that  John  dreamed  of,  even  if  it  were  pos- 
sible. In  the  first  place,  you  will  note  the  great  change  that 
has  come  over  our  thought.  No  one  any  longer  believes  that 
this  new  condition  of  humanity  is  to  come  by  any  divine  in- 
terposition, suddenly  wrought  among  us,  from  without.  We 
all  now  believe  in  evolution,  in  human  growth,  in  the  possi- 
bility of  a  development  from  our  present  condition  into 
something  that  is  higher  and  better.     The  main  body  of  the 


178  Signs  of  the  Times 

churches,  indeed,  apparently  has  given  up  the  possibility  of 
bringing  about  such  a  condition  of  affairs  in  this  world. 
They  have  postponed  their  dream  to  that  mysterious  country 
that  lies  beyond  the  border-land  of  death.  But,  on  the  part 
of  those  of  us  who  believe  that  a  better  condition  can  be 
brought  about  here,  let  us  try  to  see  what  that  better  con- 
dition is.  It  may  not  seem  to  you  half  as  gorgeous  as  the 
picture  of  the  Apocalypse,  but  let  us  try  to  put  in  plain  words 
just  what  we  would  all  desire  for  mankind  if  we  could  have 
our  way. 

We  would  not  need  to  change  the  surface  of  the  earth  a 
great  deal.  This  earth  of  ours  is  fair  enough,  sweet  enough, 
beautiful  enough,  good  enough.  But  we  would  like  to  reach 
such  a  condition  of  society  as  that  wherein  every  man,  every 
woman,  every  child,  might  have  opportunity  —  for  what? 
Opportunity,  in  the  first  place, —  and  there  are  millions  on 
the  earth  to-day  who  do  not  have  this  opportunity, —  to  live 
healthful  physical  lives.  This  is  the  first,  the  basis,  the 
foundation  of  all.  If  we  could  realize  our  kingdom  of 
heaven,  we  would  have  first,  then,  such  a  condition  of  things 
as  would  enable  all  persons  to  live  healthy  physical  lives. 

Next,  we  would  have  mankind  released  from  their  overbur- 
den of  drudgery :  we  would  not  abolish  labor  if  we  were  wise, 
but  we  would  abolish  too  much  labor.  For,  mark  you,  if 
humanity  is  ever  to  rise  to  anything  above  the  animal,  it 
must  be  by  finding  time,  leisure  to  study,  to  develop,  to  grow, 
to  culture  one's  self.  What  do  any  of  us  mean  by  living  ? 
We  would  not  give  a  snap  of  our  fingers  for  bare  existence 
with  its  contents  left  out.  When  we  talk  about  living,  we 
mean  food,  clothing,  shelter,  that  are  at  least  comfortable, 
healthful  conditions  for  the  body,  time  enough  to  cultivate 
our  love  of  music,  to  develop  at  least  some  taste  for  art,  for 
beauty  of  form  and  color,  for  the  lovely  things  of  human  life ; 


The  New  City  of  God  179 

time  enough  to  think,  to  study  and  cultivate  the  brain,  to 
find  out  what  is  true  and  what  is  false,  to  understand  some- 
thing, at  least,  of  this  wondrous  world  home  of  ours,  to  know 
something  of  the  past  and  of  the  pathway  by  which  this  race 
of  ours  has  come  to  be  what  it  is  to-day.  We  mean,  then,  a 
little  wealth, —  enough  to  release  us  from  day-long  drudgery, 
—  time  for  cultivating  these  higher  sides  of  human  nature, 
these  things  that  we  think  of  as  peculiarly  manly  and 
womanly.  For,  if  you  stop  to  think  of  it  for  a  moment,  you 
will  see  this  fact :  that,  in  a  condition  of  the  world  in  which 
every  man  and  woman  should  be  compelled  to  labor  all  his 
or  her  waking  hours  merely  for  subsistence,  anything  like  a 
human  life  would  be  impossible.  It  would  only  be  working, 
eating  so  that  you  could  work,  sleeping  so  that  you  could 
work,  the  drudgery  of  a  mere  animal  existence.  There  must 
be  accumulated  capital,  there  must  be  leisure,  before  men 
and  women  can  rise  out  of  the  animal  stage  and  live  in  the 
human.  This,  then,  is  our  ideal  condition  of  the  world ;  and 
what  do  we  need  finer  and  better?  A  world  where  we 
could  all  live  healthfully,  where  we  should  have  opportunity 
to  cultivate  all  the  higher,  finer  sides  of  our  nature,  opportu- 
nity to  live  for  music  and  literature,  opportunity  to  think,  to 
study,  to  remember,  and  to  forecast, —  opportunity,  in  short, 
to  lead  a  human  life. 

This,  then,  being  our  ideal,  let  us  consider  for  a  little  as 
to  whether  the  world  is  actually  moving  towards  that.  Mr. 
George  has  said  in  his  wonderfully  interesting  book,  "  Prog- 
ress and  Poverty,"  that  the  rich  are  getting  richer  and  the 
poor  are  getting  poorer;  that  is,  that  the  common  people 
are  getting  worse  off  all  the  time.  I  do  not  believe  that  any 
one  can  intelligently  study  the  history  of  the  last  fifty  years 
without  being  convinced  that  there  never  was  a  time  in  the 
history  of  the  world  when  the  common  people  were  so  well 


i8o  Signs  of  the  Times 

off  as  they  are  to-day ;  that,  even  under  the  present  oppres- 
sions and  along  present  lines,  they  are  growing  better  and 
better  off  every  year.  But  that  is  not  enough.  We  would 
like  to  hasten  it  if  we  might.  I  speak  of  this  because,  if  I 
were  not  convinced  of  this,  I  should  have  no  heart  or  hope 
to  endeavor  to  make  things  better  than  they  are. 

What,  then,  is  the  condition  of  the  world  ?  For,  if  we  are 
to  learn  anything  about  the  future,  we  must  learn  that  lesson 
from  the  past.  We  must  find  out  the  lines  of  progress  along 
which  the  world  has  been  moving,  and  then  see  if  we  can 
hasten  the  process  a  little. 

Millions  of  years  passed  by  between  the  fire-mist  in 
which  our  solar  system  began  and  the  time  when  this  won- 
derful earth  of  ours,  mountain-pillared,  cloud-canopied,  with 
its  green  fields  and  its  waters  glinting  in  the  sunlight,  be- 
came a  fitting  home  for  man.  When  it  was  ready,  man 
appeared, —  not  man  perfect,  but  man  developed,  as  I  be- 
lieve, by  natural  processes  out  of  the  lower  forms  of  animal 
life ;  developing  as  naturally  as  the  flower,  and,  mark  you, 
just  as  divinely  as  the  flower;  for  the  natural  to  my  thought 
is  divine.  Weak  and  ignorant,  man  had  to  learn  by  expe- 
rience ;  for  there  is  no  other  way  in  which  a  finite  being  can 
learn.  Carry  it  in  mind  all  the  way  through  discussions  like 
this,  that  the  one  purpose  of  God  in  this  mysterious  life  of 
ours,  the  one  supreme  purpose,  is  the  development  of  a 
soul ;  and  the  development  of  souls  has  not  been  waiting  all 
these  ages  until  we  get  a  perfect  earth  and  a  finished  condi- 
tion of  society.  That  process  is  going  on  all  the  time ;  and, 
if  the  schooling  is  not  finished  here,  there  is  time  enough 
and  room  enough  in  God's  infinite  universe  to  complete  it  in 
his  own  time  and  in  his  own  way.  So  let  us  not  think  that 
all  the  time  is  wasted  because  our  ideals  are  not  yet  realized. 

Man  has  been   developed   physically,   how?      By  strug- 


The  New  City  of  God  181 

gle.  This  world  has  been  a  gymnasium  for  the  physical 
development  of  man.  He  has  been  developing  mentally, 
how?  Through  struggle,  through  mistakes,  through  falling 
and  rising  again.  This  world  has  been  a  school-house  in 
which  man  has  been  morally  cultured  and  developed,  how  ? 
After  precisely  the  same  method  as  that  by  which  he  has 
been  developed  physically  and  intellectually.  People  seem 
to  think  that  the  existence  of  evil  is  somehow  a  great  mis- 
take, no  part  of  God's  plan,  something  utterly  unlike  any- 
thing else.  But  I  am  unable  to  see  how.  mankind  could 
have  been  developed  morally  except  through  this  struggle 
with  evil,  through  making  mistakes  and  falling  and  rising 
again.  So  here  along  these  lines  mankind  has  been  devel- 
oping through  all  these  ages. 

Not  only  in  these  ways  has  man  developed,  but  in  political 
ways,  from  the  time  when  there  was  no  freedom,  when  men 
were  subject  to  the  caprice  of  successful  war-chiefs,  down 
through  the  Middle  Ages,  when  a  man  was  hardly  anything 
but  a  means  of  power  in  the  hands  of  the  robber  barons,  to 
a  time  when,  in  the  words  of  Theodore  Parker,  quoted  and 
made  memorable  by  Abraham  Lincoln  at  Gettysburg,  we 
are  "  a  government  of  the  people  and  for  the  people  and  by 
the  people."  You  see  that  the  growth,  the  political  develop- 
ment of  the  people,  has  been  from  the  very  first  towards  the 
growth  of  the  individual  and  more  freedom  of  action  for  the 
individual.  I  emphasize  that  because  I  shall  have  occasion 
to  recur  to  it. 

There  has  also  gone  on  a  social  development  parallel 
to  this  of  the  physical  and  political,  towards  that  form  of 
society  in  which  the  individual  shall  count  for  more  and 
more,  and  be  less  under  the  domination  of  the  social  influ- 
ences that  tend  ever  to  repress  any  movement  of  individual- 
ity and  growth. 


1 82  Signs  of  the  Times 

Parallel  to  this  is  the  growth  in  the  industrial  life  of  the 
world.  At  first,  the  drudgery  of  the  world  was  done  by- 
slaves  and  slaves  alone,  no  freedom  in  it  whatever.  There 
was  no  power  of  moving  from  place  to  place,  no  choice  of 
masters  or  of  tasks.  We  have  not  reached  the  ideal  indus- 
trial condition  of  the  world  yet,  but  every  step  of  progress 
from  the  first  has  been  towards  industrial  liberty  for  the 
individual ;  and  they  who  talk  about  the  wage-system  as  a 
system  of  slavery,  as  being  as  bad  as  that  which  it  super- 
seded and  of  things  as  going  from  bad  to  worse,  are  either 
ignorant  or  grievously  misrepresent  the  past.  The  tendency 
I  believe  to  be,  in  every  direction,  not  towards  a  socialism 
that  shall  repress  individual  action,  but  towards  another  kind 
of  socialism,  in  which  individualism,  individual  liberty,  indi- 
vidual initiative,  shall  have  the  largest,  the  freest,  and  the 
most  unimpeded  course. 

What  has  been  attained  through  a  large  part  of  the  his- 
tory of  the  social  development  of  the  past  has  been  the 
result  of  what  science  calls  natural  selection,  which  may 
mean  to  our  minds  a  blind  process,  a  struggle  between 
individuals  in  which  the  strongest  comes  out  ahead.  But 
we  have  reached  a  point  where  it  is  possible  for  us  to  intro- 
duce another  force,  a  conscious  human  selection.  We  have 
gone  far  enough,  and  have  become  wise  enough,  so  that  we 
can  do  something  towards  creating  for  ourselves  better  condi- 
tions. You  know  that  science  talks  a  great  deal  about  the 
influence  of  environment ;  and  that  is  wise.  There  is  a  con- 
stant tendency  on  the  part  of  all  things  to  be  adapted  to  and 
shaped  by  their  surroundings.  The  lower  world  is  helpless 
in  the  hands  of  this  force.  A  bird  is  able  to  build  a  better 
nest,  if  you  give  it  a  better  place  and  better  materials  out  of 
which  to  construct  it ;  but  man  can  do  more  than  that.  Man 
can  create  new  and  better  and  higher  conditions,  so  as  to  lift 
in  that  way  the  level  of  the  individual  and  social  life. 


The  New  City  of  God  183 

What  and  how  much  can  we  do  ?  Not  a  great  deal,  but 
we  can  do  a  little.  We  cannot  make  this  development  very 
rapid ;  and  I  believe  that  the  thing  we  need  to  guard  against 
at  the  present  time  is  the  thought  that  we  can  do  things 
suddenly,  that  we  can  bring  about  a  perfect  condition  of  the 
world  in  only  a  little  while ;  because  just  as  soon  as  we 
delude  ourselves  with  thoughts  like  this  we  are  only  laying 
up  for  ourselves  bitter  disappointment  and  a  loss  of  courage 
to  do  the  something  that  is  possible. 

In  the  first  place,  we  can,  by  social  agreement,  make 
knowledge  universal.  He  who  is  ignorant  is  the  victim  of 
his  surroundings.  It  is  only  he  who  knows  the  forces  with 
which  he  deals  who  is  capable  of  controlling  them  and  mak- 
ing them  serve  him.  The  next  generation  ought  not  to 
come  without  every  man  and  woman  who  is  to  compose  it 
possessing  that  accumulated  stock  of  knowledge  which  the 
world  has  in  its  possession, —  all  that  should  enable  it  to 
avoid  the  mistakes,  the  blunders,  of  the  past,  and  so  control 
and  lift  the  circumstances  that  are  to  surround  it. 

What  else  can  we  do  ?  I  believe  there  is  a  hint  of  truth 
at  least  in  that  for  which  Mr.  Henry  George  is  contending. 
I  believe  that  the  natural  resources  of  the  earth  ought,  as 
rapidly  as  possible,  to  be  freed  from  the  monopolies  of  pri- 
vate and  individual  ownership,  at  least  to  the  extent  of  giv- 
ing every  man  all  possible  opportunity. 

To  illustrate  what  I  mean.  Go  to  England,  and  there 
you  find  a  man  who  never  did  a  stroke  of  work  in  his  life, 
who  never,  in  the  slightest  degree,  added  to  the  welfare  of 
the  world,  possessing  and  keeping  for  his  own  private  be- 
hoof, in  an  unproductive  condition,  thousands  and  thou- 
sands of  acres  of  land.  On  the  other  hand,  such  a  condi- 
tion of  poverty  as  led  Mr.  William  Morris  to  say  to  me  that 
there  were  five  hundred  thousand  people  in  London  to-day 


184  Signs  of  the   Times 

who  do  not  know  what  they  are  going  to  eat  to-morrow. 
There  ought  to  be  such  a  condition  of  things  as  to  make  it 
unprofitable  for  any  man  to  control  the  natural  resources  of 
the  wealth  of  this  world  unused.  So  far  as  possible,  every 
man  ought  to  have  opportunity  to  use  these  springs  of 
wealth  and  prosperity  that  no  man  made,  but  which  are  the 
gift  of  God  to  all  the  world.  I  am  perfectly  well  aware  that 
every  attempt  to  bring  about  this  condition  of  things  is  sur- 
rounded by  a  thousand  difficulties.  There  are  inherited  and 
vested  wrongs  not  only,  but  inherited  and  vested  rights, 
that  must  be  regarded.  If  this  man  has  not  earned  his 
thousands  of  acres,  he  is  not  to  blame  for  having  been  born 
into  their  possession.  It  is  a  manifestly  difficult  and  deli- 
cate task,  but  something  can  gradually  be  done  in  this  direc- 
tion by  which  eventually  the  natural  resources  of  the  world 
may  be  thrown  wide  open  as  an  opportunity  for  every  man. 

One  other  thing  can  be  done.  This  will  seem  to  many  a  very 
slight  thing  at  first;  and  yet,  in  the  light  of  what  I  have  said, 
you  ought  to  appreciate  its  immense  significance.  We  can, 
we  ought,  we  must,  shorten  the  hours  of  labor  for  those  who 
depend  on  their  daily  labor  for  their  bread.  Why  must  we  ? 
For  the  simple  reason  that  no  man  can  by  any  possibility 
cultivate  himself  in  those  things  which  make  manhood  un- 
less he  have  at  least  a  little  time.  The  world's  work  can 
be  done,  not  only  as  much  as  is  being  done,  but  more  than 
is  done  now.  More  wealth  can  be  created  than  is  being 
created,  and  still  shorter  hours  of  labor  be  assigned  to  those 
whose  daily  life  is  drudgery  for  bread.  Some  things  in  this 
direction  are  possible. 

Now,  at  the  last,  what  is  the  outcome  of  it  all  ?  The  out- 
come, as  I  have  said,  is  that  the  tendency  of  all  growth  from 
the  beginnings  of  life  on  this  earth  have  been,  according  to 
the  formula  of  Mr.  Herbert  Spencer,  from  the  homogeneous 


The  New  City  of  God  185 

to  the  heterogeneous,  from  sameness  towards  variety,  from 
the  social  mass  towards  the  individual.  So  that  I  believe,  if 
we  can  learn  anything  from  the  history  of  the  past  as  to 
what  is  going  on  to-day,  it  is  that  the  outcome  of  evolution  is 
to  be  an  emphasizing  and  lifting  up  higher  and  a  broaden- 
ing of  the  range  of  individual  life.  The  outcome  of  progress 
is  not  to  be  a  solid  mass  of  machinery  with  the  individual 
only  a  cog  or  a  spoke  in  the  wheel.  It  is  to  be  the  develop- 
ment of  millions  on  millions  of  perfected  individualities. 
And  all  this  dream  of  a  perfect  society  out  of  imperfect 
units  is  absurd  on  the  face  of  it.  You  cannot  build  a  per- 
fect house  of  imperfect  bricks ;  neither  can  you  construct 
perfect  society  of  imperfect  individuals.  The  first  step 
towards  the  perfect  society  is  the  perfecting  of  the  individual 
life. 

This  does  not  mean  the  abolition  of  competition.  It  is 
possible  to  make  competition  appear  to  be  a  very  hard,  ugly, 
cruel  thing.  But  look  at  it  for  a  moment.  Competition 
means  not  only  the  cheapening  of  products,  it  means  not 
only  a  perpetual  pressure  towards  discovering  new  and  better 
things :  it  means  the  sharpening  of  the  individual  faculty 
and  power.  It  is  the  development  of  the  individual  life. 
And  for  whose  good  is  it  ?  I  hear  those  who  are  socialists 
denouncing  competition,  as  though  it  were  the  invention  of 
the  evil  one  and  had  come  from  the  pit.  For  whose  good  is 
competition  ?  It  is  for  the  benefit  of  every  man,  woman,  and 
child  in  the  world  except  those  who  are  manufacturing  or 
dealing  in  the  same  material.  And  it  is  an  injury  to  them 
only,  looked  at  as  manufacturers  and  dealers.  But  they  are 
also  consumers.  Looking  at  them  as  consumers,  it  is  for 
their  good.  I  do  not  believe  that  competition  is  evil  or 
wrong,  for  it  seems  to  me  to  be  God-ordained ;  for  it  has  ex- 
isted from  the  first,  and  every  step  of  progress  has  come 
under  the  influence  and  guidance  of  competition. 


1 86  Signs  of  the  Times 

Where,  then,  is  the  principle  of  socialism  to  come  in? 
Just  here.  What  is  a  perfect  individual,  developed  to  his 
utmost,  alone  ?  Take  your  perfect  individual :  let  him  be  a 
speaker,  and  he  depends  on  his  audience  ;  let  him  be  a 
painter,  and  he  depends  on  somebody  else  so  trained  that 
he  can  love  beauty  and  appreciate  pictures ;  let  him  write  a 
book,  and  he  depends  on  some  one  being  cultivated  enough 
to  buy  and  read  and  appreciate  his  book;  let  him  manu- 
facture or  invent  something  for  human  use,  and  he  is  depend- 
ent for  his  very  life  on  somebody  to  buy  and  use  the  product 
of  his  manufacture  or  invention.  So,  when  we  have  attained 
this  perfection  of  the  individualities  of  the  world,  springing 
out  of  that  very  condition  of  individual  perfection  that  has 
come  as  the  result  of  free  competition,  there  must  exist  the 
most  perfect  ideal  of  socialism ;  that  is,  the  natural,  mutual 
interdependence  of  all  these  perfected  individualities.  So 
socialism  and  individualism,  competition  and  co-operation, 
are  no  more  contradictory  than  are  the  forces  centripetal 
and  centrifugal  that  hold  the  planets  in  their  magnificent 
orbits.  I  believe  that  it  is  under  the  play  of  both  these 
forces  that  are  to  come  the  perfect  individual  and  the  perfect 
society. 

When  we  have  realized  our  "  city  of  God  "  here  on  earth,  we 
shall  have  attained  what  the  churches  have  always  held  out 
before  themselves  as  their  one  ideal  and  aim, —  we  have  pre- 
pared ourselves  for  death.  For,  if  we  are  developed  as  com- 
pletely as  may  be  into  the  image  and  after  the  ideal  of  God, 
why,  then,  we  are  ready  for  any  condition  to  which  we  may 
be  called  in  the  days  that  are  to  come. 

Where,  then,  are  we  to  look  for  our  ideal  city  ?  Not  in  the 
heavens,  but  growing,  by  processes  of  natural  development, 
here  upon  the  earth. 


The  New  City  of  God  187 

From  God,  down  out  of  heaven, 

John  saw  the  city  fair 
Descend  in  gorgeous  vision, 

A  city  of  the  air. 

By  human  labor  founded 

On  rock-hewn  truths  below, 
To  God,  up  towards  the  heavens, 

I  see  the  City  grow. 

Let  us,  then,  consecrate  ourselves  to  the  service  of  our  fel- 
low-men, to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  labor  towards  the 
realization  of  this  age-long  hope  of  the  world. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 

BERKELEY 

• 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 

2tDec'48CD 

REC'D  CIRC  DEFT 

HAR28'?41!   « 

3*m64JA 
4  REC'D  LD 

JUN  8   '64-10  AM 

?  m  % 

<»:       •        u . 
q;      (j      HJ 
ca      w       <c 
Z3       t  J       o 
Ql:       o         lu 

£    °:    ° 

z      o:      > 

=1                      => 

***hm& 

JAN  1  5  2002 

NOV  1  <*  '67  *4  PM 

LOAN  DEFT. 

THAR  26  19 

r4.2  3 

LD  21-100m-9,'48(B399sl6)476 

M)30 


$33 


LA  ::.       'ixJrMfe 


